Search Employment Law

Mr Kumar resigned from JK Hospitality after alleging he was repeatedly denied proper breaks and practical support at work. The ERA considered whether those breaches were sufficiently serious that resignation was a reasonably foreseeable response.

Mr Da Silva left a meeting with DSJ Joinery believing he had been dismissed, although the employer said the meeting was about health and safety rather than discipline. The ERA examined whether there was an actual dismissal and, if not, whether the employer's conduct nevertheless ended the relationship.

Big B Cartage said Mr Tyack had resigned by text, while Tyack maintained he had not and later attempted to return after a period of medical incapacity. The case turned on who actually ended the employment relationship and whether the employer could rely on the alleged resignation.

Mr Chase-Pona resigned after workplace disputes including a theft allegation, but Coin Total terminated his employment before his notice period expired. The ERA had to determine whether the employment ended by resignation, dismissal or constructive dismissal.

Boya Trading summarily dismissed Mr Zheng by text on 26 May 2023, alleging that he had refused to work and abandoned his employment. Mr Zheng said there had been no warning or consultation and raised dismissal and disadvantage grievances the following month.

Ms Jiang worked for Trusted Touch Therapy under disputed casual-employment paperwork and later raised dismissal and minimum-employment-standard claims. The company entered liquidation after the investigation meeting, and the ERA also considered inaccurate wage and time records.

PowerNet proposed to disestablish Ms Pink's occupational-health role and replace the service model, but the ERA scrutinised whether the proposal genuinely reflected her whole role, the asserted flexibility rationale and the lack of supporting costings.

UBP dismissed Mr Rapana after a prolonged period of absence and communication difficulties. The case examined the medical information available to the employer, inconsistencies in the reasons later given for dismissal and whether the investigation fairly addressed the real circumstances.