Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for 90 day trial
An unjustified dismissal is a Personal Grievance claim. The central question is whether the employer's actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
A probationary period does not remove an employee's ordinary dismissal rights. The employer should assess suitability fairly, identify performance concerns, provide a genuine opportunity to improve and follow a fair process before dismissal.
![Sinclair-Walker v Alert Monitoring Otago (1994) Limited [2026] NZERA 29 - unjustified dismissal; $25,000 compensation and $16,900 lost remuneration](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.
Shenwei Zhang worked for Fat Dragon Restaurant Management under an arrangement the employer described as casual. After the relationship deteriorated, his work was ended through WeChat and he pursued dismissal, wage and holiday-pay claims.
Casual workers can still be dismissed during a period of engagement, and disputes often turn on whether the relationship was genuinely casual or had become regular, ongoing employment.
ZiGen Wong worked for NZAT Construction without a valid work visa and was later denied wages and employment protections on the basis that the arrangement was not lawful employment. He claimed employee status, arrears and constructive dismissal.
Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.
Nicholas Fry's dispute with Fire and Emergency New Zealand arose from FireSuper membership and a promise about protecting the identity of another person, TEP, whose eligibility he had raised. Mr Fry alleged FENZ broke that promise and that the resulting use of TEP's identity damaged his employment relationship.
