ClickCease

Results for warnings

Showing 33-40 of 70 results
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation told automotive technician Layth Abu-Laban that his employment would end because an alleged one-year contract would not be renewed. His agreement was actually permanent, and the employer later relied on allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft.

Matched passage: Mr Abu-Laban had not received written warnings.
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Matched passage: SVSL had a staged performance management policy (verbal warning, written warning, final warning, and disciplinary meeting with 48 hours written notice and supporting documents).
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: On 13 January 2025, without any prior performance meetings or warnings, SVSL emailed Ms Pedersen saying CCTV and KPI reports showed she had not met key performance indicators (basket size/value and customer sign-ups).
Noel Jr Camacho v North Beach Limited [2025] NZERA 824 - 90-day trial clause held ineffective because probation and trial terms conflicted; employee may bring PG

North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.

Matched passage: A probationary period clause describing guidance, feedback, and warnings, and expressly stating probation does not limit legal rights and the parties must deal in good faith.
Shenwei Zhang v Fat Dragon Restaurant Management Limited and Kejian Ji [2025] NZERA 737 - 'casual' label rejected; unjustified dismissal by WeChat; $5,686.33 reimbursement, $12,000 compensation, $9,904.08 arrears plus interest

Shenwei Zhang worked for Fat Dragon Restaurant Management under an arrangement the employer described as casual. After the relationship deteriorated, his work was ended through WeChat and he pursued dismissal, wage and holiday-pay claims.

Matched passage: Performance concerns were raised late and through the WeChat exchange, rather than through a proper warnings/process pathway.
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: Mr Raina's position is that a low- level traffic offence such as mobile phone use while driving is not serious enough to warrant dismissal without some prior formal warnings.
DQJ v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2025] NZERA 365 - Inland Revenue ended employment prematurely without exhausting alternatives

Inland Revenue ended DQJ's employment after a lengthy deterioration in workplace relationships and concerns that it said could no longer be resolved. The ERA examined whether IR had exhausted fair alternatives before treating the relationship as incapable of continuing.

Matched passage: failures to achieve those standards such as progressive warnings, before considering dismissal.
Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Matched passage: Informal guidance, a 2022 warning and later performance-management plans addressed matters including following instructions, communication with children and the quality of written learning material.

Browse topics