Search Employment Law

Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.

Mr Williams was told by email on 17 March 2024 that he had been made redundant immediately. He had not previously been told his job was in jeopardy, no supporting information accompanied the decision, and there had been no genuine consultation before the outcome was reached.

Ms McCann resigned while on sick leave after conflict with Winton Capital, pressure around the employment relationship and removal of access to a senior executive's email and calendar. She alleged the cumulative conduct made continued employment untenable.

Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.

Mr Callen's unjustified-dismissal grievance against Alaron Products was not formally filed in the Authority until after the ordinary 90-day raising period had become an issue. The case addressed whether the grievance could nevertheless proceed and what remedies followed from the dismissal claim.

Rotorua Quarry treated Cameron Rix's absence as abandonment and ended his employment. The ERA had to decide whether his conduct showed an intention to permanently walk away from the job and whether the employer was entitled to terminate on that basis.

This costs determination followed Christopher Wyeth's partly successful employment case against Hansen Products. The dispute was whether costs should be reduced because he had rejected a $10,000 Calderbank settlement offer before the substantive determination.

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.