ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 57-64 of 204 results
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.
JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified

Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that Mr Jayalath also claimed Infosys' process leading to his dismissal was flawed because he was not given ample opportunity to seek legal advice and properly respond to Infosys' allegations.
Olliver & Taylor v Te Araroa [2025] NZERA 312 - fixed-term dismissals unjustified; $37,500 and $27,500 compensation

Community Connectors Daynah Olliver and Sheena Taylor were employed on fixed-term agreements that did not properly record the statutory reasons for the fixed terms. Te Araroa then tried to end both employments early without a fair process.

Matched passage: No fair dismissal process There was no meaningful employment process before termination.
Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.

Matched passage: Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified The Authority accepted UMA had a genuine business reason to restructure (tight funding and a desire to reduce duplication and inefficiency).
Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

Matched passage: The dismissal process was materially unfair JITL resolved on 5 December 2024 to terminate Mr Singh's employment and notified him on 9 December.
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

Corrections dismissed prison officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi for alleged unjustified use of force after an incident that also resulted in a criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted on self-defence grounds. The ERA examined the employer's independent investigation, the evidence available and the fairness of the serious-misconduct conclusion.

Matched passage: Those matters did not validate the original dismissal process.
Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Traffica summarily dismissed foreman Selwyn McDonald on site after a heated exchange with a director. The ERA accepted that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but he was given no chance to answer before being fired.

Matched passage: The later dismissal letter referred to the failed drug test, but the dismissal itself occurred during the worksite exchange on 14 May 2024.

Browse topics