Search Employment Law

Lautusi Isaako worked full-time for ABS Builders under day-to-day direction but the respondents disputed aspects of the employment relationship and later ended his work by text after raising performance concerns for the first time. The case also involved public-holiday, annual-leave and record-keeping failures.

Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.

Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.

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.

Open Country Dairy summarily dismissed Mr Stewart on the final day covered by his medical certificate after a disciplinary process. The ERA considered both the employer's process and Mr Stewart's own conduct when assessing justification and remedies.

Lekeisha Ramsay was dismissed by National Storage just over three months into employment under a probationary arrangement. The ERA examined attendance and performance concerns, the adequacy of warnings and whether the employer had given her a fair opportunity to improve and respond before termination.

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.

Mr Callen's unjustified-dismissal grievance against Alaron Products was not formally filed in the Authority until after the ordinary 90-day raising period had become an issue. The case addressed whether the grievance could nevertheless proceed and what remedies followed from the dismissal claim.