ClickCease

Results for disciplinary

Showing 33-40 of 108 results
Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Matched passage: A fair disciplinary process requires clear allegations, notice of the possible consequences and a genuine opportunity to respond before a decision is made.
Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Matched passage: Underpayment and summary dismissal ERA Home did not provide the employment on the agreed terms, did not pay Mr Yang at the contractual hourly rate or in the agreed manner, and ended his employment without a disciplinary or dismissal process.
Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: The conduct could amount to serious misconduct The Authority did not minimise the safety issue.
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 659 - apprentice dismissed by text after repeated wage problems

Apprentice builder Nicholas Stalker experienced repeated late and missing wage payments before being dismissed by text for alleged performance and misconduct without prior warnings, investigation or an opportunity to respond. The ERA upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and ordered compensation, 13 weeks' lost wages, substantial arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, a penalty and costs.

Matched passage: After months of irregular and missing wage payments, he was dismissed by text message for alleged performance and misconduct issues that had not previously been put to him.
South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [2026] NZEmpC 193 - constructive dismissal upheld

South Pole maintained that Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign, pressured him to leave, stopped providing meaningful work and refused to engage with him about work matters. The Employment Court upheld the ERA's constructive-dismissal finding.

Matched passage: A lawyer's letter called him to a meeting about the disputed resignation and possible performance concerns, with disciplinary action potentially following if no suitable outcome was reached.
Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: The relationship deteriorated when the employer called him to a disciplinary meeting concerning alleged serious misconduct.
James Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster Company Limited [2026] NZERA 587 - absenteeism dismissal followed an unfair process

Atlas had legitimate concerns about James Honotapu's persistent absenteeism, but did not warn him that a meeting could end in dismissal. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $8,574 after reducing lost wages and compensation by 50 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: Key point: if dismissal becomes a possible outcome during an attendance or disciplinary meeting, the employer should pause the process, explain the risk and allow the employee a proper opportunity to respond with representation and relevant evidence.
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Matched passage: Misconduct allegations did not rescue the dismissal Sleaktek's correspondence mixed redundancy with allegations of serious misconduct.

Browse topics