Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for 90 day trial
![Sinclair-Walker v Alert Monitoring Otago (1994) Limited [2026] NZERA 29 - unjustified dismissal; $25,000 compensation and $16,900 lost remuneration](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
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.
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.
ZiGen Wong worked for NZAT Construction without a valid work visa and was later denied wages and employment protections on the basis that the arrangement was not lawful employment. He claimed employee status, arrears and constructive dismissal.
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.
Nicholas Fry's dispute with Fire and Emergency New Zealand arose from FireSuper membership and a promise about protecting the identity of another person, TEP, whose eligibility he had raised. Mr Fry alleged FENZ broke that promise and that the resulting use of TEP's identity damaged his employment relationship.
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.
Duane April, a migrant worker, alleged Coatrite Fire underpaid his agreed hourly rate, made unlawful deductions, subjected him to racialised comments and later dismissed him after a defective disciplinary process. The decision maker did not attend the disciplinary meeting and important allegations were not fairly tested.
A Port of Tauranga stevedore was dismissed for medical incapacity after an asthma flare during dusty palm-kernel work. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing there was a serious dispute about the actual exposure risk, his capacity for modified duties and the employer's consideration of alternatives.
