ClickCease

Results for personal grievance

Showing 249-256 of 363 results
MA v NO.2 NOODLE NZ LIMITED [2026] NZERA 25 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $9,500 compensation; one week wages; $500 penalty.

Ms Ma's short restaurant employment ended after management announced reduced hours and a disputed phone call, followed by her omission from the next roster. The employer said she was casual and had abandoned employment.

Matched passage: The Authority upheld the personal grievance for unjustified dismissal and made orders for compensation, lost wages, and a penalty payable to the Crown.
ZHANG v PENG and ANOR [2026] NZERA 16 - Constructive dismissal upheld; $18,000 compensation; $62,831 wage arrears; $3,730 premium repaid.

Mr Zhang paid a $3,730 premium to obtain restaurant employment and later accumulated substantial unpaid wages. He resigned after the employment relationship deteriorated and argued the employer's breaches had forced that resignation.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2026] NZERA 16 Registry: Auckland Parties: ZHANG v PENG and ANOR Outcome: Constructive dismissal found and the personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.
JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $8,933 remedies (reduced) plus wage arrears.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

Matched passage: The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal

George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.

Matched passage: Mr King raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal and sought lost wages, compensation for hurt and humiliation, and the cost of tools.
Jimmy Nelson v The Digger Man Limited [2025] NZERA 835 - dismissal for unexplained absences held unjustified on process; remedies reduced 50% for contribution; $720 lost wages and $5,000 compensation

Jimmy Nelson was dismissed by The Digger Man after repeated attendance problems and unexplained absences. The employer had genuine concerns, but the issue was whether it gave him a final, fair opportunity to understand the seriousness of the latest incidents and explain himself before termination.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814 - chef dismissed after failed food safety inspection; substantive grounds, but process flaws made dismissal unjustified; $13,707 ordered

Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.

Matched passage: Accordingly, Richhold Ltd was joined under s 103B of the Act as a controlling third party to the personal grievance claims.
Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor [2025] NZERA 818 - misconduct, medical/incapacity; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.

Matched passage: Summary of findings - unjustified dismissal Ms Kaushal has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
Invalid trial period clause, no process, and wage record failures - Shania Mortimer v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited [2025] NZERA 808; $30,087.30 ordered (lost remuneration and distress compensation)

Shania Mortimer was dismissed by Auckland Steam 'N' Dry under a purported trial period. The dispute concerned whether the trial clause was legally effective, whether any dismissal process occurred, and the employer's wage and record-keeping compliance.

Matched passage: What the Authority found Trial period: the clause in the employment agreement was invalid because it did not include the required statement that an employee dismissed during the trial period cannot bring a personal grievance (s 67A).

Browse topics