Search Employment Law

Akitio Trucking dismissed Mr Swenson after concluding he punched another driver. He argued the employer had failed to deal with earlier theft allegations and that its investigation and dismissal process were unjustified.

Brandt Tractor removed sales manager Nicholas Pilcher from the workplace on 'special leave', took his phone and laptop and then dismissed him five days later over four bullying and harassment complaints. He was not given the underlying complaints, even in redacted form, or a genuine chance to answer them.

Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

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.

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

R1i Technology dismissed Mr Bali during a Webex meeting and then confirmed the decision in writing. The employer did not participate in the ERA proceeding and the evidence showed no meaningful process satisfying the minimum statutory tests of procedural fairness.

Stephen Nunn was dismissed by Port Nicholson Fisheries after investigations into crayfish compliance issues. The case examined the quality of two disciplinary investigations, including reliance on an earlier warning, withheld information, unseen CCTV material, suspension and whether alternatives to dismissal were considered.