Search Employment Law

Ms Dung Pham disputed the way her employment at a nail salon ended and sought remedies for dismissal. The Authority had to resolve conflicting accounts of whether and when the employer brought the employment relationship to an end.

Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.

Hailee-Anne Hirst said a bakery effectively dismissed her after calling her in on a day off and confronting her about allegedly missing market takings. The employer denied dismissing her but did not participate in the investigation meeting.

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.

Construction workers Nan Jia and Huachao Hou alleged FX NZ made unlawful rent deductions from wages and failed to pay public-holiday, annual-leave and other minimum entitlements. Their case combined employment-standard claims with personal-grievance issues about the employer's treatment of them.

Mr Wei's claims followed a workplace altercation and the employer's response to it, including the eventual end of his employment and disputed wage-related entitlements. CCTV footage and conflicting accounts of the incident were central to the ERA investigation.

Philip Moller was dismissed by Cardinal Logistics after refusing a drug and alcohol test said to arise from a safety complaint. The case turned on whether Cardinal had genuine and reasonable grounds to require the test and whether it fairly verified the allegation before suspending and dismissing him.

FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.