Search Employment Law

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Tasman Rugby Union dismissed chief executive Steven Mitchell after an organisational review became intertwined with later misconduct allegations. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing the process appeared predetermined and that his substantive dismissal grievance had real strength.

Rotorua Lakes Council summarily dismissed recreation planner Richard Lyons after repeated absences and failures to communicate. Its own code classified the conduct as misconduct subject to a progressive warning process, rather than serious misconduct warranting immediate dismissal.

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Oranga Tamariki summarily dismissed social worker Bigson Gumbeze after an external investigation into complaints about his supervision, dealings with managers and aspects of his practice. The ERA upheld the dismissal, but he challenged that result afresh in the Employment Court.

Ms Brennan's employment with Stella 2020 ended on 30 July 2024 without a fair disciplinary or dismissal process. The employer did not participate effectively in the ERA investigation, which proceeded on the evidence available to the Authority.

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.