Search Employment Law

Atlas had legitimate concerns about James Honotapu's persistent absenteeism, but did not warn him that a meeting could end in dismissal. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $8,574 after reducing lost wages and compensation by 50 percent for contribution.

Electrical Importing Co agreed Valerie Leech's core job terms and told her when to start before presenting a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause. It later relied on that clause to dismiss her.

BAZ had genuine commercial reasons to make Luo's role redundant, but the employee was not given a fair opportunity to engage with the proposal or meaningful redeployment possibilities before the decision was made.

Barfoot & Thompson dismissed senior property manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. An imminent neurological assessment had not been obtained and the proposed alternative role did not fit clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours.

Adulto HR believed Briar Kennedy was on a 90-day trial, but the agreement given after she started contained no trial clause. The employer then purported to extend the nonexistent trial into probation and dismissed her after 97 days on qualification and performance grounds.

Conner Powell was made redundant by OH and N Contracting as forestry work wound down and no replacement work had been secured. The ERA accepted that business pressure was genuine but examined whether the employer consulted before deciding the redundancy and complied with notice and record obligations.

FEC was a beginning school principal whose relationship with the board deteriorated after a parent-related incident. Among the challenged conduct were after-hours visits by the presiding member to FEC's home to deal with school employment matters, followed eventually by FEC's resignation.

Ilalio Solomona was dismissed by Auckland Council after conflict-of-interest concerns about his outside personal-training business. Although his employment obligations could legitimately restrict outside activity, the disciplinary process did not put the contractual obligations actually relied on to him for response.