ClickCease

Results for workplace investigation

Showing 49-56 of 239 results
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: ... Representatives: Mr Balachandariyar appeared in person; Nadine Denton appeared for Civtec Investigation meeting: 17 February 2026 in Christchurch Determination date: 15 May 2026 Employment: Fibre Technician, commenced 23 January 2023 Key issues: redundancy selection scoring; ...
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Limited [2025] NZERA 845 - resignation, covert recordings and limited unjustified disadvantage

Jingkai Wang claimed Envoco had dismissed him and subjected him to bullying and an unsafe workplace, while the employer said he resigned. The evidence also included covert recordings and a trial clause signed only after work had begun.

Matched passage: ... 25% for contribution, leaving $1,500 payable. At a glance Authority member: Matthew Piper Investigation: 19 September 2025, Auckland Determination: 23 December 2025 Dismissal claim: failed - the Authority found a resignation Bullying / earlier disadvantage claims: failed ...
LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809 - interim reinstatement ordered pending dismissal grievance (non-publication)

LGY sought interim reinstatement after being dismissed by a school board while the substantive personal grievance remained unresolved. The Board relied on serious allegations and workplace concerns, while LGY argued there was a strong arguable dismissal case and that reinstatement could operate pending a final hearing.

Matched passage: Conflicts and process stability matter: if the same decision-maker is investigator, complainant, and adjudicator, fairness risk increases, especially where the reasoning shifts over time.
BLIGNAUT v WASTE MANAGEMENT NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 560 - The personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage was upheld.

Mr Blignaut challenged Waste Management's treatment of him during a workplace conflict, including alleged bullying, suspension and pressure to resign, before he was ultimately dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The ERA considered both the pre-dismissal disadvantage claims and the termination itself.

Matched passage: ... The Authority notes that The letter confirms the reason for dismissal was: Based on the investigation into the allegations against you, it has been determined that your conduct constitutes a serious breach of our company policies and procedures, warranting the termination ...
DQJ v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2025] NZERA 365 - Inland Revenue ended employment prematurely without exhausting alternatives

Inland Revenue ended DQJ's employment after a lengthy deterioration in workplace relationships and concerns that it said could no longer be resolved. The ERA examined whether IR had exhausted fair alternatives before treating the relationship as incapable of continuing.

Matched passage: 2 DQJ challenged that determination successfully - the Employment Court interim reinstated DQJ to the payroll pending a substantive investigation by the Authority.
DUN TRAN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 73 - dismissal and employment-entitlement claims partly successful

Dun Tran's employment dispute with Huynh involved the ending of the employment relationship together with claims about pay and workplace treatment. The ERA had to separate the dismissal issue from the employment-standard claims and determine which alleged breaches were actually established.

Matched passage: The determination records that I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Dung Tran claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000.
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: Later, The Authority heard evidence and submissions at an investigation meeting in Christchurch on 24 and 25 September 2024.
Briar Leckie v Alliance Group Limited [2020] NZERA 221 - unjustified suspension and induced resignation treated as dismissal; $15,000 compensation; reimbursement reserved

Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.

Matched passage: Why the dismissal was unjustified The Authority criticised the investigation and the employer's reliance on witness statements.

Browse topics