ClickCease

Results for warnings

Showing 41-48 of 104 results
Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos described a hostile workplace in which visa-related pressure, pay issues and deteriorating treatment preceded the end of employment. The ERA considered dismissal alongside wage arrears and minimum employment-standard breaches.

Matched passage: The ERA accepted that warnings did not necessarily need to be formal written warnings under the employment agreement, but it was still unsafe to rely on alleged verbal warnings that were not supported by contemporaneous notes or reliable records.
Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Traffica summarily dismissed foreman Selwyn McDonald on site after a heated exchange with a director. The ERA accepted that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but he was given no chance to answer before being fired.

Matched passage: On 19 April 2024, Mr Ahmed issued a final written warning.
Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Dallison 2021 dismissed café worker Auto John Huntley-Byrne by text after end-of-shift tasks were left incomplete. Although the employer had legitimate concerns, it did not hold a proper disciplinary meeting or provide the support-person and response rights required by its own documents.

Matched passage: Mr Huntley-Byrne apologised for the argument, but no disciplinary outcome or warning was issued at the meeting and no meeting notes were provided to him.
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: That undercut PNF's position that failing to transport the octopus to Auckland was so serious that it justified a serious misconduct finding and final written warning.
Fiona Scott v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 342 - casual bus driver found to be permanent and unjustifiably dismissed

Fiona Scott signed a casual agreement with Ritchies but in practice regularly drove urban bus routes. After disciplinary issues arose, the employer relied on the casual characterisation and later ended her work, raising questions about her real status and the justification for dismissal.

Matched passage: The first written warning was upheld Ms Scott attended the disciplinary meeting with her union representative and responded to the allegations.
Raheel Reddy v Studio Image Limited [2026] NZERA 323 - barber dismissed by text message after lateness and attendance issues

Barber Raheel Reddy was dismissed by text after ongoing lateness and attendance concerns. Studio Image argued he had resigned or that termination was justified, but there had been no proper disciplinary process giving him a fair opportunity to answer the concerns.

Matched passage: Warnings help, but do not replace process: prior warnings may support contribution, but they do not justify a no-process dismissal.
Devon Whitham v Brutalitees Limited and Christine Dawson [2026] NZERA 325 - tattoo and piercing apprentice was an employee, not a contractor

Devon Whitham entered a tattoo and piercing apprenticeship that Brutalitees described as unpaid and contractor-like despite exercising close control over her work. The case concerned her true employment status, unpaid work and the heated meeting at which the relationship ended.

Matched passage: Ms Whitham had not received any verbal or written warnings about performance or conduct and had not been told her employment was at risk before the dismissal.
Mujahid Khan v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2026] NZERA 316 - interim reinstatement ordered after dismissal of senior quarantine officer

Senior quarantine officer Mujahid Khan, an 18-year MPI employee, sought interim reinstatement after dismissal while his substantive grievance remained unresolved. The ERA considered the strength of the arguable dismissal case, the possibility of permanent reinstatement and the balance of convenience.

Matched passage: The ERA wanted to know how the established conduct fitted the policy framework and why dismissal, rather than a warning, was open to MPI.

Browse topics