Search Employment Law

George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.

Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.

JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.

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.

Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.

Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed by Greene after a process in which important material was not provided to her until after the termination decision. The ERA examined whether she had been given the information and opportunity to respond that a fair and reasonable employer was required to provide.