ClickCease

Results for unjustified disadvantage

Showing 17-24 of 171 results
Nirali Bhatt v Prishal Limited, Utkarsh Deota and Vishal Patel [2026] NZERA 492 - unpaid wages caused unjustified disadvantage

Nirali Bhatt moved from India to work for Prishal Limited at Juice Heist and later raised concerns that she was not being paid in full. The case involved disputed hours, deficient wage and time records and whether continuing underpayment after complaint caused a personal grievance as well as arrears.

Matched passage: The determination did not find an unjustified dismissal.
FEC v HES [2026] NZERA 475 - constructive dismissal failed but unjustified disadvantage found over home visits

FEC was a beginning school principal whose relationship with the board deteriorated after a parent-related incident. Among the challenged conduct were after-hours visits by the presiding member to FEC's home to deal with school employment matters, followed eventually by FEC's resignation.

Matched passage: However, the Authority was not satisfied that the broader health and safety concerns or disadvantage claims had been raised with the school in a way that the school could have understood as personal grievances.
Todd Dormer v Rhino-Rack New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 353 - ambiguous commission clause, Sales Commission Scheme, and unjustified disadvantage

Rhino-Rack recorded Todd Dormer's commission entitlement only as '10% paid quarterly'. He argued this meant 10 percent of sales or gross margin, while the company said a broader Sales Commission Scheme with individual, regional and company targets applied.

Matched passage: The successful claim was an unjustified disadvantage claim arising from unclear remuneration information, not an order for unpaid gross-margin commission.
Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

Phil Jacklin argued that Planit Software Testing's short-term incentive clause guaranteed him a 25 percent bonus paid quarterly. The employer said the scheme was discretionary, while a separate issue concerned its failure to set KPIs and eligible amounts at the beginning of the financial year as promised.

Matched passage: Remedies and orders The Authority awarded compensation for the disadvantage, assessed as hurt, humiliation, and injury to feelings arising from the uncertainty and the handling of the KPI/eligible amount obligation.
Wendy Darrell v Canterbury Vehicle [2026] NZERA 35 - redundancy, unjustified disadvantage and dismissal

Wendy Darrell's dispute with Canterbury Vehicle concerned the ending of her employment and associated employment entitlements. The ERA considered whether the employer's conduct met the justification standard and what compensation or payments were required for the breaches established.

Matched passage: Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
Nan Jia and Huachao Hou v FX NZ Limited and Yingsi Wei [2026] NZERA 30 - unjustified disadvantage and dismissal

Construction workers Nan Jia and Huachao Hou alleged FX NZ made unlawful rent deductions from wages and failed to pay public-holiday, annual-leave and other minimum entitlements. Their case combined employment-standard claims with personal-grievance issues about the employer's treatment of them.

Matched passage: Unjustified disadvantage [44] Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that they were unjustifiably disadvantaged in their employment by the actions of FZ.
PUTAANGA v MOVE FREIGHT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 425 - medical-incapacity dismissal and unsafe-work disadvantage

MOVE Freight dismissed Mr Putaanga for medical incapacity after a workplace accident and a lengthy period assessing his prospects of returning to full-time work. He also alleged the employer had failed to provide a safe workplace and that this caused unjustified disadvantage.

Matched passage: Based on this I assess the quantum of compensation for Mr Putaanga to be $9,000 for the unjustified disadvantage grievance and $12,000 for the unjustified dismissal.
BLIGNAUT v WASTE MANAGEMENT NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 560 - The personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage was upheld.

Mr Blignaut challenged Waste Management's treatment of him during a workplace conflict, including alleged bullying, suspension and pressure to resign, before he was ultimately dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The ERA considered both the pre-dismissal disadvantage claims and the termination itself.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 560 Registry: Auckland Parties: BLIGNAUT v WASTE MANAGEMENT NZ LIMITED Authority member: Sarah Blick Hearing date: 25-27 March and 12 May 2025 (4 days) Outcome: The personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage was upheld.

Browse topics