ClickCease

Results for redundancy compensation

Showing 57-64 of 67 results
STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 - employer challenge unsuccessful

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.

Matched passage: The employee's compensation and the relevant costs award remained payable.
HILL v TAMAKI LABOUR HIRE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 100 - personal grievance partly successful; remedies limited to proven breaches

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.

Matched passage: The letter stated it appeared as a result of the 3 March 2023 meeting, Ms Hill was being made redundant and was suspended.
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.
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: ... work-from-home decision Unsuccessful claim: one applicant's annual leave refusal claim Compensation: $10,000 to each applicant under s 123(1)(c)(i) Total compensation ordered: $40,000 Contribution: no reduction under s 124 Costs: reserved Background: collective bargaining ...
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: Compensation Ms Scott sought $10,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132 - dismissal unjustified; investigation disadvantages justified

Fire and Emergency New Zealand investigated complaints involving firefighter Russell Kinzett and two other firefighters before summarily dismissing him. Mr Kinzett challenged both the investigation process and the dismissal, and was later interim-reinstated.

Matched passage: ... established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. Orders and payments mentioned Compensation: $9,600 Lost wages: A quantifiable amount "lost wages under s 123(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the period between his summary dismissal on 6 May 2024 and his interim ...
South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [2026] NZEmpC 193 - constructive dismissal upheld

South Pole maintained that Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign, pressured him to leave, stopped providing meaningful work and refused to engage with him about work matters. The Employment Court upheld the ERA's constructive-dismissal finding.

Matched passage: ... [2025] NZERA 245 Outcome: employer's challenge dismissed; constructive dismissal upheld Compensation: $15,000 Unpaid wages: $4,920 Annual-leave pay: $8,200 Contribution: no reduction Costs: payable to Mr Hao The disputed resignation Mr Hao began work as a food technology ...
Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

Phil Jacklin argued that Planit Software Testing's short-term incentive clause guaranteed him a 25 percent bonus paid quarterly. The employer said the scheme was discretionary, while a separate issue concerned its failure to set KPIs and eligible amounts at the beginning of the financial year as promised.

Matched passage: Remedies and orders The Authority awarded compensation for the disadvantage, assessed as hurt, humiliation, and injury to feelings arising from the uncertainty and the handling of the KPI/eligible amount obligation.

Browse topics