Search Employment Law

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.

Ms Jiang worked for Trusted Touch Therapy under disputed casual-employment paperwork and later raised dismissal and minimum-employment-standard claims. The company entered liquidation after the investigation meeting, and the ERA also considered inaccurate wage and time records.

Tammy Stevenson had worked regular cleaning hours for Mountain Chalets for years despite the employer describing her as casual. A dispute over guaranteed hours and a phone conversation then led her to claim dismissal and challenge the employer's treatment of her employment status and holiday entitlements.

A group of MPI employees sought to pursue claims arising from roster and restructure changes despite earlier litigation and a mediated settlement. The preliminary determination addressed whether the claims were barred by the certified settlement, estoppel or the Authority's jurisdiction.

Ms Moke faced complaints and an external investigation while employed by Raukura Hauora O Tainui Trust. The case examined the fairness of the investigation, disciplinary steps and the Trust's eventual preliminary and final conclusions, including whether tikanga and kaupapa-based processes altered the statutory fairness requirements.

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.

Kaytlin Pinder was dismissed under a purported 90-day trial period. The key issue was whether the trial provision had been validly agreed before she became an employee, together with related failures to provide proper employment documentation.

Neil Armstrong worked for Surplus Brokers in an arrangement the employer characterised as casual. The dispute concerned whether he had actually been dismissed, whether the casual label affected his rights, and the employer's failures to provide compliant employment documentation.