ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 33-40 of 270 results
CHUNG v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 69 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal unjustified

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

Matched passage: ... 9-12 September 2024 (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and ...
BALI v R1i TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 409 - Webex dismissal without fair process

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.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 409 Registry: Auckland Parties: BALI v R1i TECHNOLOGY LIMITED Authority member: Jeremy Lynch Hearing date: 9 July 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
Casual employment dismissal: when casuals can still claim unfair dismissal

Casual workers can still be dismissed during a period of engagement, and disputes often turn on whether the relationship was genuinely casual or had become regular, ongoing employment.

Matched passage: A common mistake is for employers to assume that because work is described as "casual", there is no need for process.
Stephen Nunn v Port Nicholson Fisheries LP [2026] NZERA 345 - unjustified dismissal after crayfish compliance investigations

Stephen Nunn was dismissed by Port Nicholson Fisheries after investigations into crayfish compliance issues. The case examined the quality of two disciplinary investigations, including reliance on an earlier warning, withheld information, unseen CCTV material, suspension and whether alternatives to dismissal were considered.

Matched passage: The second investigation relied on that warning, withheld key material, failed to show CCTV footage, did not consult before suspension, and did not consider alternatives to dismissal.
Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

Retail assistant Gemma Pedersen was dismissed by WhatsApp/email during a six-month probation period for allegedly missing sales KPIs. She said she had not received the promised practical training and had never been put through a genuine performance process before termination.

Matched passage: Termination was communicated abruptly by WhatsApp and email, without the fair process requirements being followed.
KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806 - redundancy consultation called a 'charade'; unjustified dismissal; $47,692.30 awarded

KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.

Matched passage: Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified The Authority was critical of the consultation process.
STEWART v OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LIMITED (3265479), OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LIMITED v STEWART (3275619) [2025] NZERA 330 - summary dismissal unjustified; 100% contribution removes lost wages

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.

Matched passage: ... $US100,000 from his consulting business. Decision markers Having regard to the reasonable process followed by Mr McCutcheon and Mr Peters and reviewing the transcript of the meeting, The Authority found Mr Stewart was capable of both understanding what was being put to him ...
Sheridan v Pact Group [2026] NZEmpC 51 - medical incapacity dismissal overturned

Roseanne Sheridan developed PTSD after a serious threat from a resident at work and was dismissed for medical incapacity about six months later. Specialist ACC information and rehabilitation planning were still developing, and a return-to-work process had not been completed.

Matched passage: UrlEncode(judgmentUrl); } Sheridan v Pact Group [2026] NZEmpC 51 - medical incapacity dismissal overturned Roseanne Sheridan's medical-incapacity dismissal had been upheld by the Employment Relations Authority.

Browse topics