Search Employment Law

Allied Auto Parts dismissed Mr Mon by text message and required him to work out two weeks' notice. The employer later relied on concerns about working from home and other matters, but no proper disciplinary or dismissal process had been carried out.

Veolia dismissed Mr Trail after a series of workplace outbursts, having previously issued a warning and then relied on later complaints. The ERA examined whether the proven conduct and disciplinary history could reasonably justify dismissal.

Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.

Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.

Cooper No 1 sold its business and told Ms Piacun her employment was ending, without paying a notice period. The ERA considered whether the sale itself ended employment or whether Cooper had taken the initiative to terminate her contract.

Recurring factual and procedural mistakes seen in ERA disputes, including poor records, unclear allegations, rushed dismissals, weak redundancy consultation and failures to prove loss or mitigation.

STL Linehaul challenged an ERA determination that had found Leo Waters' redundancy unjustified and awarded him remedies. The Employment Court proceeding tested whether the employer could overturn that employee-side outcome and the amounts flowing from it.