ClickCease

Results for personal grievance

Showing 273-280 of 282 results
Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376 - Unjustified dismissal during Covid isolation, redundancy not genuine

Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.

Matched passage: If you are dealing with a personal grievance (PG), redundancy risk, wage or notice disputes, or you need representation at mediation / the ERA, contact us.
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.

Matched passage: Trial period clauses must comply with section 67A: they must be in writing and must state the employee cannot bring a personal grievance for dismissal.
Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2022] NZERA 657 - constructive dismissal after a 'trial period' threat by text; $8,000 compensation, $3,600 reimbursement, $2,000 penalty

Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 - employer challenge unsuccessful

STL Linehaul challenged an ERA determination that had found Leo Waters' redundancy unjustified and awarded him remedies. The Employment Court proceeding tested whether the employer could overturn that employee-side outcome and the amounts flowing from it.

Matched passage: Primary documents and related material STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 Waters v STL Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 AndersonLaw summary of [2021] NZERA 304 If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the applicable time limit can be critical.
Gary Cotton v Darcee Gosling, Gosling Solutions Limited, and Rob Ralston [2022] NZERA 90 - employer identity dispute; sole trader held liable; summary dismissal unjustified; $19, - orders for lost wages, arrears, holiday pay, and compensation

Gary Cotton's case required the ERA to identify who his employer actually was after work performed through Gosling Solutions and dealings involving Darcee Gosling and Rob Ralston. The case also concerned a summary termination and claims for unpaid employment entitlements.

Matched passage: Mr Cotton raised a personal grievance by letter dated 17 May 2021 claiming unjustified dismissal and unpaid wages.
Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 - Unjustified dismissal, redundancy process failures

Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.

Matched passage: Read more Redundancy and restructuring Employment Relations Authority (ERA) Personal grievances (PG)
Surplus Brokers Ltd v Armstrong [2020] NZEmpC 131 - abandonment argument rejected

Surplus Brokers argued that Neil Armstrong had abandoned his employment, rather than being dismissed, after an absence and breakdown in communication. The case examined what an employer must establish before treating employment as ended by abandonment.

Matched passage: Primary documents and related material Surplus Brokers Ltd v Armstrong [2020] NZEmpC 131 Armstrong v Surplus Brokers Ltd [2019] NZERA 235 AndersonLaw summary of [2019] NZERA 235 If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the applicable time limit can be critical.

Browse topics