ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 241-248 of 295 results
LYONS v ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL [2025] NZERA 467 - summary dismissal disproportionate; 100% contribution to compensation

Rotorua Lakes Council summarily dismissed recreation planner Richard Lyons after repeated absences and failures to communicate. Its own code classified the conduct as misconduct subject to a progressive warning process, rather than serious misconduct warranting immediate dismissal.

Matched passage: the employer held the meeting in Mr Lyons' absence and later that same day advised him by email and letter of his summary dismissal.
RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469 - disciplinary process and dismissal procedurally unfair

Mr Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that It was all very casual and, in Mr Cal's words, (quoted wording omitted) [33] In relation to the incident on 27 August 2024 Mr Raina was given the letter of 30 August 2024 the same day inviting him to attend a disciplinary meeting on 3 September 2024.
TONG v SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 460 - employer conduct caused constructive dismissal

Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Wang v Steel Master Co Ltd [2025] NZERA 457 - dismissal, not resignation; $11,000 compensation and 8 weeks lost wages

Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
WRW v MCCARTHY ENTREPREISES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 452 - employer conduct caused constructive dismissal; no lost wages

WRW resigned after McCarthy Enterprises proposed changes to her work and the relationship deteriorated. The ERA had to decide whether the employer's conduct was sufficiently serious and causative to convert that resignation into a constructive dismissal and whether any wage loss was proved.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455 - redundancy process materially unfair

KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that At lunch time the next day, 21 February 2024, Mr Anirudh emails Ms Ku about the redundancy consultation meeting the previous day, when she had no feedback or alternative suggestions.
HAI ZHENG v JCD NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 453 - constructive dismissal; compensation and penalty

Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
LEBRETON v DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 451 - Unjustified dismissal found (employee succeeded).

Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.

Matched passage: 50 Holiday pay: $743.

Browse topics