ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 57-64 of 71 results
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Matched passage: There was no disciplinary or redundancy process, no consultation, no opportunity to respond and no fair notice of an employment decision.
Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Matched passage: In late 2024 there were discussions about a new employment agreement and the possibility of redundancy.
Nirali Bhatt v Prishal Limited, Utkarsh Deota and Vishal Patel [2026] NZERA 492 - unpaid wages caused unjustified disadvantage

Nirali Bhatt moved from India to work for Prishal Limited at Juice Heist and later raised concerns that she was not being paid in full. The case involved disputed hours, deficient wage and time records and whether continuing underpayment after complaint caused a personal grievance as well as arrears.

Matched passage: Redundancy was not the successful grievance Juice Heist was financially unsuccessful and Prishal proposed to close it in June 2024.
Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was an apprentice builder with Keene Construction when he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment. The director then texted that there would not be a company and told him not to bother coming to work, creating a dispute about whether those messages amounted to dismissal.

Matched passage: Process still matters: commercial difficulty does not remove the need for a fair process before dismissal or redundancy.
Four Applicants v A Respondent [2026] NZERA 407 - union activity discrimination, duress, and work-from-home disadvantage

Four salaried union members alleged that a senior manager pressured them over strike action and delegate activity and that striking staff were temporarily denied discretionary work-from-home access. The non-publication case tested discrimination and duress protections connected with lawful union activity.

Matched passage: The respondent argued that the applicants had not established a tangible detriment because the adverse events referred to by the manager, such as lack of promotion or redundancy, had not occurred and the applicants remained active union members.
Fiona Scott v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 342 - casual bus driver found to be permanent and unjustifiably dismissed

Fiona Scott signed a casual agreement with Ritchies but in practice regularly drove urban bus routes. After disciplinary issues arose, the employer relied on the casual characterisation and later ended her work, raising questions about her real status and the justification for dismissal.

Matched passage: Ritchies did not establish a valid substantive reason to end the employment, such as serious misconduct or redundancy.
Julie Curtis v Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited [2026] NZERA 46 - constructive dismissal after employer refused wages and delayed return; $25,000 compensation

Julie Curtis had a regular 20-hour week with Affordable UK Caravans when the employer told her there was no work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. She treated the prolonged exclusion from paid work as a serious breach and resigned.

Matched passage: ... "no work, no pay" without properly consulting and following lawful processes (including any restructure/redundancy process if relevant). Do not rely on vague "understandings": if the written agreement fixes hours, a claimed pre-contract understanding about flexibility is ...
HARRY SAMPSON v LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED [2026] NZERA 17 - Preliminary time limit ruling; grievance in time; mediation directed.

Harry Sampson's proceeding against Lyttelton Port Company raised a preliminary 90-day time-limit issue before the merits of his personal grievance could be investigated. The employer argued the grievance was out of time; Mr Sampson relied on the communications by which he said it had been raised.

Matched passage: In Ceres New Zealand LLC v DJK,2 the employee was issued a dismissal letter for redundancy on 16 January 2019.

Browse topics