ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 25-32 of 103 results
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon had genuine, documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance and safety, but knew English was a serious barrier and still used English for critical disciplinary communications rather than Punjabi. His suspension and dismissal followed without a clear opportunity to understand and answer the case against him.

Matched passage: The problem was whether Mr Singh genuinely understood their seriousness and had been given a reasonable chance to answer before dismissal.
Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

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.

Matched passage: It found that the review, the later disciplinary process and the material before the Board gave Mr Mitchell a strongly arguable case that adverse and personalised views had formed before the process was completed.
Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Traffica summarily dismissed foreman Selwyn McDonald on site after a heated exchange with a director. The ERA accepted that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but he was given no chance to answer before being fired.

Matched passage: The warning referred to serious misconduct, abusive behaviour, and a number of road rage incidents, including one said to have occurred more than a year earlier.
LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809 - interim reinstatement ordered pending dismissal grievance (non-publication)

LGY sought interim reinstatement after being dismissed by a school board while the substantive personal grievance remained unresolved. The Board relied on serious allegations and workplace concerns, while LGY argued there was a strong arguable dismissal case and that reinstatement could operate pending a final hearing.

Matched passage: Disciplinary process and key documents In early November 2024 the chair of the Board recommended a disciplinary process for alleged misconduct/serious misconduct.
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Matched passage: It accepted that GWF was entitled to treat repeated abusive language directed at a manager, together with failure to wear required safety gear, as serious misconduct.
Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Clive Bryham, a long-serving field operations manager, was dismissed after Omexom alleged he mishandled an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report and exposed the business to reputational risk with a key client. He sought interim reinstatement pending final determination of his dismissal and disadvantage grievances.

Matched passage: After meetings and correspondence, Omexom formed a preliminary view that his failures amounted to serious misconduct and that summary dismissal was proposed.
RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469 - disciplinary process and dismissal procedurally unfair

Mr Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.

Matched passage: After that, Disciplinary process [24] On the morning of 30 August 2024, Mr Cals gave Mr Raina a letter raising the incident of mobile phone usage whilst driving.
Disciplinary Investigations for Employers NZ | Misconduct and Complaints

Employer guide to disciplinary investigations: framing allegations, preserving evidence, interviewing witnesses, disclosure, representation and keeping the investigation separate from the final disciplinary decision.

Matched passage: A serious complaint involving bullying, harassment, violence, dishonesty, safety, or potential dismissal may need a much more careful process.

Browse topics