ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 57-64 of 321 results
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: ... legal advice. At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 132 Registry: Auckland Parties: KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND Authority member: Jeremy Lynch Hearing date: 3 and 4 December 2024 (2 days) Determination date: 4 March 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and ...
DUN TRAN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 73 - dismissal and employment-entitlement claims partly successful

Dun Tran's employment dispute with Huynh involved the ending of the employment relationship together with claims about pay and workplace treatment. The ERA had to separate the dismissal issue from the employment-standard claims and determine which alleged breaches were actually established.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
DUNG PHAM v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 75 - dismissal proved; lost remuneration and compensation awarded

Ms Dung Pham disputed the way her employment at a nail salon ended and sought remedies for dismissal. The Authority had to resolve conflicting accounts of whether and when the employer brought the employment relationship to an end.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
RAY YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED [2025] NZERA 64 - Unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (warning)

Synergy Nutrition issued Ray Yu a written warning and later dismissed him amid concerns including phone use and his ability to work night shifts. The ERA separately assessed the fairness of the warning, dismissal and Yu's own conduct under the contribution provisions.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 56 - disadvantage claims decided; later dismissal claims left separate

Ms O'Brien's proceeding against The Platform concerned employment grievances arising before her later dismissal. After the investigation meeting she sought to add dismissal-related claims, creating a procedural dispute about whether those new matters belonged in the determination already under way.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: NZERA 56 Registry: Wellington Parties: O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED Authority member: nan Hearing date: nan Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 44 - Messenger dismissal for inability to pay; wages and compensation awarded

BlueLagoon ended Mr Ormsby's employment by Messenger after the employer said it could no longer afford to pay him. The case also involved unpaid wages, holiday pay and KiwiSaver obligations alongside the dismissal grievance.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
JURY v BUCI LIMITED [2025] NZERA 7 - permanent part-time status, unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal

Buci described Ms Jury as casual despite a long pattern of regular shifts. When her hours were cut and the restaurant later insisted she sign a casual agreement before continuing to work, she claimed unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: Do not force a status change by ultimatum: requiring an employee to sign a materially different casual agreement or stop working can amount to repudiatory conduct and constructive dismissal.
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form Read the full ERA determination (embedded) If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Browse topics