Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for 90 day trial
![PIACUN v COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 32 - business sale did not avoid notice; dismissal unjustified](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Cooper No 1 sold its business and told Ms Piacun her employment was ending, without paying a notice period. The ERA considered whether the sale itself ended employment or whether Cooper had taken the initiative to terminate her contract.
Mr Chen worked in a construction arrangement where the identity of the employer and the true nature of the relationship were disputed. Evidence at the ERA included inconsistent accounts about when Construst was first mentioned and the parties agreed the amount of lost remuneration if employment was established.
A care worker with 21 years' service was summarily dismissed after a resident incident, principally for not calling an ambulance. The ERA examined whether the employer judged her conduct with hindsight and fairly considered what she actually knew, her explanations and gaps in workplace policies and practice.
Recruit IT Group made Mr Knox's consultant role redundant shortly before another staff member was promoted into a consultant position. Mr Knox argued the redundancy rationale, consultation timeframe and claimed lack of redeployment options did not withstand scrutiny.
Jacob Maarschalk was contracted for 25 hours a week but was regularly rostered for substantially more at West Auckland Trust Services. The dispute concerned later roster changes and a final written warning, including whether he was given a fair opportunity to comment before those decisions affected his employment.
Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.
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.
