ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 41-48 of 270 results
Andrea Lawson v Luxottica Retail New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 52 - investigation process disadvantages upheld; $15,000 compensation and $3,000 good faith penalty

Store manager Andrea Lawson challenged Luxottica's investigation and employment treatment after concerns were raised about store performance and policy compliance. Her case included disadvantage claims, dismissal allegations and an argument that the employer had failed to accommodate a medical condition.

Matched passage: Not every grievance about 'stress' becomes a dismissal case.
KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132 - dismissal unjustified; investigation disadvantages justified

Fire and Emergency New Zealand investigated complaints involving firefighter Russell Kinzett and two other firefighters before summarily dismissing him. Mr Kinzett challenged both the investigation process and the dismissal, and was later interim-reinstated.

Matched passage: ... legal advice. At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 132 Registry: Auckland Parties: KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND Authority member: Jeremy Lynch Hearing date: 3 and 4 December 2024 (2 days) Determination date: 4 March 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and ...
Urgent Employment Law Advice for Employers NZ | Dismissal and Suspension

Urgent employer guidance for situations where dismissal or suspension is being considered and an immediate decision could create a personal grievance or destroy useful evidence.

Matched passage: Related employer help pages These pages may also assist: Dismissal and disciplinary process for employers NZ - before sending a warning, outcome letter, or dismissal letter.
Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall was made redundant from Consultex's Northland asbestos and mould work after a downturn that gave the employer a genuine reason to reduce headcount. The dispute centred on whether Consultex complied with its good-faith information and consultation obligations before choosing and implementing the redundancy.

Matched passage: But a genuine business rationale did not make the process fair.
Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

Lyon Kawhaaru was 'instant dismissed' by email from The Deck Tahuna after a customer incident at the Nelson café. The ERA examined what actually occurred, whether the employer fairly investigated it and how Mr Kawhaaru's own conduct should affect remedies.

Matched passage: The ERA concluded Mr Kawhaaru was dismissed by the 6 June email, effective 4 June, and final pay was processed shortly after.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies

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.

Matched passage: Why the ERA found the dismissal unjustified No substantive reason was proved: The employer did not provide evidence of any conduct or performance issue that could justify dismissal.
Yusong Du v Sly House Limited [2025] NZERA 765 - WeChat dismissal and 50% contribution reduction

Sly House sent migrant construction worker Yusong Du a WeChat message saying he was unsuitable because he was too slow and lacked strength, then argued he had abandoned the job. The ERA also considered evidence that he had overstated his prior work experience.

Matched passage: The ERA rejected that account, found the message was a dismissal, and held the dismissal unjustified because no disciplinary or contractual termination process had been followed.
Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376 - Unjustified dismissal during Covid isolation, redundancy not genuine

Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.

Matched passage: Why this case matters Redundancy vs dismissal: calling something "redundancy" does not make it genuine if the role continues or if the real reason is something else.

Browse topics