Search Employment Law

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.

Aiga Faamanu Roache's Accounts Payable Team Leader role at Pamu was disestablished after automation reduced manual finance processing. The ERA examined whether Pamu had actually explained why her leadership role was surplus, allowed meaningful consultation and handled redeployment properly.

Wendy Darrell's dispute with Canterbury Vehicle concerned the ending of her employment and associated employment entitlements. The ERA considered whether the employer's conduct met the justification standard and what compensation or payments were required for the breaches established.

Next Generation Homes stopped providing Mr Maiorenko with work and ceased communicating with him after he queried pay and future work. The case concerned whether that conduct itself ended the employment relationship and what wage arrears remained outstanding.

Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.

Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.

JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.

Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.