ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 41-48 of 204 results
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.
Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union dismissed chief executive Steven Mitchell after an organisational review became intertwined with later misconduct allegations. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing the process appeared predetermined and that his substantive dismissal grievance had real strength.

Matched passage: Instead, it considered whether Mr Mitchell had a sufficiently serious and arguable unjustified-dismissal case, whether permanent reinstatement remained arguable, where the balance of convenience lay, and what overall justice required pending the substantive hearing.
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was made redundant from OH and N Contracting as forestry work reduced and no replacement contract had been secured. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason to reduce staff but examined whether the employer had consulted, disclosed information, considered alternatives and paid notice correctly.

Matched passage: The Authority considered that a more thorough process would probably not have kept Mr Powell employed indefinitely, because the logging work was ending and the business had no new work coming in.
WATSON v ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 265 - disadvantage claim fails but dismissal grievance succeeds

Mr Watson challenged a written warning and later alleged he was constructively dismissed after his relationship with Alchemy Builders deteriorated and he was removed from a workplace WhatsApp group. Timeliness affected the earlier disadvantage grievance.

Matched passage: ... date: 13 May 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Story in plain English The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. In summary, Second, he alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed on 21 ...
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: The Authority found that the manager gave Mr Tillocksingh a choice between resignation and dismissal.
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: But the Employment Relations Authority still found his suspension and dismissal unjustified because the process used to assess the seriousness of the incident was materially unfair.

Browse topics