ClickCease

Results for unjustified dismissal

Showing 273-280 of 325 results
Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs working at Buoy Café were dismissed after an escalating conflict with new management. The employer did not properly investigate the allegations or give either employee a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding to terminate them.

Matched passage: The Authority noted that even if there is some wrongdoing, a process failure can still make a dismissal unjustified unless the defects are truly minor and would not have changed the outcome.
CHENG v THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 167 - personal grievance partly successful; compensation and lost wages

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.

Matched passage: ... Determination date: 20 March 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Story in plain English The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). In summary, After ...
Blue Hunt v Lance Wakelin [2026] NZERA 463 - farm assistant unjustifiably dismissed after cowshed dispute

Farm assistant Blue Hunt's employment ended after a cowshed dispute with Lance Wakelin. The case required the ERA to determine who the employer was, whether Mr Hunt had been dismissed and whether any fair process or substantive reason justified the termination.

Matched passage: His evidence was that the dismissal had a profound effect on him: he had to live in his car for many months, the dismissal affected his health and wellbeing, he felt shame and loss of dignity because others knew about the dismissal, and he suffered financial stress.
HIRST v AL ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 474 - bakery worker dismissed without fair process

Hailee-Anne Hirst said a bakery effectively dismissed her after calling her in on a day off and confronting her about allegedly missing market takings. The employer denied dismissing her but did not participate in the investigation meeting.

Matched passage: Based on the above The Authority found Ms Hirst was dismissed and there being no fair process that could have allowed a substantive finding to support, The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified.
DRUMMOND v THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 82 - 90-day limit: warning grievance in time, earlier claims out

Jackson Drummond sought to pursue a series of disadvantage, discrimination and good-faith complaints against Massey University, some dating back many months before his December 2023 grievance letter. The preliminary issue was which claims had actually been raised within the statutory 90-day period.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
Jacob Maarschalk v West Auckland Trust Services Limited [2024] NZERA 333 - Unjustified disadvantage found over rostering changes and flawed final written warning; $8,500 ordered

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.

Matched passage: ... employee had full-time hours; whether rostering changes and a final written warning were unjustified actions; remedies and contribution. Outcome: Unjustified disadvantage established (rostering process and warning process). Compensation of $8,500 ordered. Costs reserved. ...
Serious misconduct in NZ employment law - how to classify it (and why it matters more after 21 Feb 2026)

A practical framework for distinguishing ordinary misconduct from serious misconduct after the 2026 remedy amendments, with emphasis on the contractual standard, the facts proved and proportionality.

Matched passage: Final word: do the classification early, and do it carefully Most unjustified dismissal cases are won or lost early, at the classification stage.

Browse topics