ClickCease

Results for disciplinary

Showing 65-72 of 155 results
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 659 - apprentice dismissed by text after repeated wage problems

Apprentice builder Nicholas Stalker experienced repeated late and missing wage payments before being dismissed by text for alleged performance and misconduct without prior warnings, investigation or an opportunity to respond. The ERA upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and ordered compensation, 13 weeks' lost wages, substantial arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, a penalty and costs.

Matched passage: After months of irregular and missing wage payments, he was dismissed by text message for alleged performance and misconduct issues that had not previously been put to him.
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: A lawyer's letter called him to a meeting about the disputed resignation and possible performance concerns, with disciplinary action potentially following if no suitable outcome was reached.
Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: The relationship deteriorated when the employer called him to a disciplinary meeting concerning alleged serious misconduct.
James Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster Company Limited [2026] NZERA 587 - absenteeism dismissal followed an unfair process

Atlas had legitimate concerns about James Honotapu's persistent absenteeism, but did not warn him that a meeting could end in dismissal. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $8,574 after reducing lost wages and compensation by 50 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: Key point: if dismissal becomes a possible outcome during an attendance or disciplinary meeting, the employer should pause the process, explain the risk and allow the employee a proper opportunity to respond with representation and relevant evidence.
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Matched passage: Misconduct allegations did not rescue the dismissal Sleaktek's correspondence mixed redundancy with allegations of serious misconduct.
Yucen Xi v Silvertime Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 580 - resign or be fired ultimatum was unjustified dismissal

Silvertime's store manager summoned Yucen Xi to an evening meeting without explaining its purpose, told her to resign or be fired, demanded her key and called security before any allegations had been fairly raised with her.

Matched passage: The absence of advance notice and a fair disciplinary process also affected Ms Xi's employment to her disadvantage because she could not prepare or answer the concerns.
Kevin Whelan v The Board of Trustees of Lindisfarne College [2026] NZERA 558 - justified dismissal but notice breach caused disadvantage

Lindisfarne College dismissed long-serving IT manager Kevin Whelan after a serious comment to students while showing CCTV footage of an accident. Although the misconduct could justify dismissal, the College paid four weeks in lieu rather than complying with the collective agreement's one-month notice mechanism or properly invoking instant dismissal.

Matched passage: The collective agreement still had to be followed The collective agreement provided that termination would be on one month's notice unless otherwise agreed, except where serious misconduct warranted instant dismissal.
FHE v Auckland Transport [2026] NZERA 552 - justified dismissal but unjustified initial suspension

Auckland Transport investigated FHE over serious conduct involving a former employee with whom he had been in a relationship. Before completing a fair consultation process over suspension, AT had already effectively removed him from work for two days.

Matched passage: The later dismissal was justified The Authority examined the wider disciplinary process separately.

Browse topics