ClickCease

Results for unjustified dismissal

Showing 241-248 of 274 results
Neil Armstrong v Surplus Brokers Ltd [2019] NZERA 235 - Casual employment dismissal, penalties for no agreement

Neil Armstrong worked for Surplus Brokers in an arrangement the employer characterised as casual. The dispute concerned whether he had actually been dismissed, whether the casual label affected his rights, and the employer's failures to provide compliant employment documentation.

Matched passage: Unjustified dismissal: the Authority concluded the employer unjustifiably dismissed Mr Armstrong during a period of casual employment.
Faitala and Vea v Pacific Island Business Development Trust [2026] NZEmpC 53 - disadvantage findings and remedies varied

Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea were made redundant by Pacific Island Business Development Trust during a flawed restructure. Their Employment Court challenge focused on pre-dismissal disadvantage during the process and the proper level of lost-remuneration and compensation remedies.

Matched passage: Why this case matters The decision is useful on the distinction between an unjustified disadvantage occurring during employment and a later unjustified dismissal.
Emily Grinsted v Bunnings Limited [2026] NZERA 236 - STI bonus claim succeeds; four other disadvantage claims fail

Emily Grinsted, Bunnings' New Zealand People and Culture Manager, brought five unjustified-disadvantage claims while remaining employed. The complaints concerned how criticisms were raised, information and duties, contractual obligations and a short-term incentive bonus.

Matched passage: Unjustified disadvantage requires unjustified employer conduct and an actual disadvantage.
South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [2026] NZEmpC 193 - constructive dismissal upheld

South Pole maintained that Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign, pressured him to leave, stopped providing meaningful work and refused to engage with him about work matters. The Employment Court upheld the ERA's constructive-dismissal finding.

Matched passage: The Employment Court upheld the finding that the employer's conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.
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: Important distinction: this was not a dismissal case.
Nicholas Fry v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2026] NZERA 116 - FENZ identity-promise breach caused disadvantage; $13,000 compensation

Nicholas Fry's dispute with Fire and Emergency New Zealand arose from FireSuper membership and a promise about protecting the identity of another person, TEP, whose eligibility he had raised. Mr Fry alleged FENZ broke that promise and that the resulting use of TEP's identity damaged his employment relationship.

Matched passage: ... with this action causing disadvantage to Mr Fry's employment. (b) A personal grievance for unjustified action by FENZ when it failed to meet its promise to Mr Fry - that by naming TEP as being the colleague eligible to join FireSuper FENZ would not cause TEP to be removed from ...
BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561 - redundancy business case and consultation both deficient

Ms Bell challenged the disestablishment of her role at Hubergroup, arguing that the redundancy lacked a genuine business basis and that she was given an inadequate opportunity to consult on a proposal assembled in haste.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 561 Registry: Wellington Parties: BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Authority member: Davinnia Tan Hearing date: 25-26 June 2025 (2 days) Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate

Ms Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 491 Registry: Auckland Parties: WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors Authority member: Rachel Larmer Hearing date: 30 June 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Browse topics