ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 49-56 of 75 results
Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 - indefinite paid suspension over prescribed medicinal cannabis; employer silence led to constructive dismissal; $33,545.75 awarded plus $4,571.55 costs/fee

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: The employment agreement allowed paid suspension only in circumstances of alleged serious misconduct while an investigation was carried out.
Cameron Rix v Rotorua Quarry Limited [2025] NZERA 152 - The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed (abandonment was not made out) and awarded remedies.

Rotorua Quarry treated Cameron Rix's absence as abandonment and ended his employment. The ERA had to decide whether his conduct showed an intention to permanently walk away from the job and whether the employer was entitled to terminate on that basis.

Matched passage: Key events described This letter advised "If the allegations are to be proven it could amount to serious misconduct and possibly involvement with NZ Police.
YAQUB v NEILSONS LAWYERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 139 - suspension disadvantage and constructive dismissal upheld

Neilsons Lawyers suspended Mr Yaqub during an investigation into alleged conduct. He later resigned, alleging that the continuing suspension and the way the investigation was handled had made continued employment untenable.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The letter included advice to Mr Yaqub that he was suspended on pay, described a number of allegations concerning his conduct which could amount to serious misconduct and advised he was to attend a meeting with the directors on Friday 29 April.
LIEN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 70 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and underpayment grievance succeed

Ms Lien was dismissed from a nail salon after allegations about outside work and later criticism of her performance. The employer also relied on a 90-day trial defence and disputed wages, although the alleged performance concerns had not been properly raised during employment.

Matched passage: In summary, On 13 December 2023, Ms Huynh sent Ms Lien a letter alleging that she was working for another salon, and that this could amount to serious misconduct and a conflict of interest.
MOKE v RAUKURA HAUORA O TAINUI TRUST [2025] NZERA 48 - external investigation and disciplinary process partly unjustified

Ms Moke faced complaints and an external investigation while employed by Raukura Hauora O Tainui Trust. The case examined the fairness of the investigation, disciplinary steps and the Trust's eventual preliminary and final conclusions, including whether tikanga and kaupapa-based processes altered the statutory fairness requirements.

Matched passage: Ultimately, They set out a process for interviewing witnesses and then reporting factual findings on whether the allegations were proven and, if so, whether the behaviour amounted to bullying and harassment of the type classified as serious misconduct under the Trust's policies.
JOHNSTONE v ZXY [2025] NZERA 11 - care worker's summary dismissal unjustified; hindsight undermined the process

A care worker with 21 years' service was summarily dismissed after a resident incident, principally for not calling an ambulance. The ERA examined whether the employer judged her conduct with hindsight and fairly considered what she actually knew, her explanations and gaps in workplace policies and practice.

Matched passage: Disciplinary Process Following further investigation, ZXY wrote to Ms Johnstone in a letter dated 12 May 2023 notifying her of a disciplinary meeting and convening a formal disciplinary meeting to hear her responses to allegations of serious misconduct.
Jacob Maarschalk v West Auckland Trust Services Limited [2024] NZERA 333 - Unjustified disadvantage found over rostering changes and flawed final written warning; $8,500 ordered

Jacob Maarschalk was contracted for 25 hours a week but was regularly rostered for substantially more at West Auckland Trust Services. The dispute concerned later roster changes and a final written warning, including whether he was given a fair opportunity to comment before those decisions affected his employment.

Matched passage: 2) Final written warning process The Authority found the investigation and disciplinary steps were procedurally deficient.
Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.

Matched passage: Give notice if required: if you dismiss after probation ends, your contractual notice terms normally apply (unless serious misconduct is proven).

Browse topics