ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 57-64 of 270 results
Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

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.

Matched passage: The employer still has to run a fair process before deciding to dismiss.
Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Point Limited made estimator Jeanette Go redundant after a genuine downturn in estimation work, but did not disclose its selection criteria, interview the other estimators or properly engage with her reduced-hours alternative before preparing the termination outcome.

Matched passage: The ERA accepted that there was a genuine business reason for reducing the estimation team, and found the dismissal decision probably would not have changed if the process had been done properly.
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: failures to achieve those standards such as progressive warnings, before considering dismissal.
ADO v JOAN FERNIE CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD [2025] NZERA 3 - redundancy found to be a pretext for conduct concerns

ADO was selected for redundancy by the Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board after workplace conduct concerns and an argument had arisen. The ERA examined whether redundancy was genuinely driven by commercial considerations and whether redeployment, including a proposed trial in the Stock Manager role, was fairly considered.

Matched passage: ... leave, that Mr Barham embarked on a course of making ill-advised allegations without due process. Additionally, the persistent allegations made against ADO, including from the time of the letter of 10 November 2023 containing allegations not relevant to the purported no ...
Andrew McFarlane v Stuff Limited [2026] NZERA 623 - redundancy selection and redeployment failures made dismissal unjustified

Stuff had genuine commercial reasons to restructure, but it failed to properly establish that Andrew McFarlane's existing role was surplus before making him compete for a substantially similar role. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified, criticised the contestable selection and redeployment process, and awarded $25,000 compensation plus $30,840.98 gross lost remuneration and holiday pay.

Matched passage: pdf"; } Andrew McFarlane v Stuff Limited [2026] NZERA 623 Stuff Limited had genuine commercial reasons to restructure its Christchurch agency sales operation, but that did not make Andrew McFarlane's redundancy dismissal fair.
Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos described a hostile workplace in which visa-related pressure, pay issues and deteriorating treatment preceded the end of employment. The ERA considered dismissal alongside wage arrears and minimum employment-standard breaches.

Matched passage: The dismissal process was badly flawed Nresh is a small business and did not have a dedicated human resources function.
JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $8,933 remedies (reduced) plus wage arrears.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

Matched passage: The Authority accepted there were substantive concerns, but found the dismissal process was significantly deficient and the defects were not "minor".
Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 - unjustified dismissal by 'no work next week' text; 4 weeks lost wages + notice arrears; $15,000 compensation; penalties and s 142Y leave

Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.

Matched passage: Remedies for the unjustified dismissal The Authority awarded: Lost wages: $5,440 (4 weeks), limited to reflect the contingency that a properly run redundancy process might have ended the job soon anyway.

Browse topics