ClickCease

Results for disciplinary process

Showing 65-72 of 97 results
QN v FT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 99 - unjustified dismissal

QN was summarily dismissed as a branch manager after FT Limited investigated an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest involving the engagement of a close family member's company. The ERA examined both the underlying conflict and whether the investigation and decision-making process was fair.

Matched passage: Ultimately, The letter then drew attention to examples of serious misconduct in QN's employment agreement and a company disciplinary and dismissal policy relating to a conflict-of-interest activity and failure to disclose.
Deborah Eyles v Bottlers Limited [2026] NZERA 300 - no redundancy process, unexplained stand down and dismissal; $20,000 compensation ordered

Deborah Eyles was stood down from her supervised-contact work and later dismissed in circumstances the employer characterised as redundancy. She challenged both the unexplained removal from work and the absence of any genuine consultation or fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: Bottlers had followed no restructuring process with her.
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.
Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Matched passage: Underpayment and summary dismissal ERA Home did not provide the employment on the agreed terms, did not pay Mr Yang at the contractual hourly rate or in the agreed manner, and ended his employment without a disciplinary or dismissal process.
Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

After more than nine years with Rooney Earthmoving, Carol Chesmar was selected for redundancy amid genuine work and financial pressure. The employer withheld information later relied on to justify the decision, did not consult about removing her from a major project and had effectively decided her role would go before consultation began.

Matched passage: The timing and manner of the process gave her no reasonable opportunity to respond before the company made its decision.
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Thomas Kenna was made redundant from Anztec after a restructuring that the ERA accepted had a genuine business basis. He challenged alleged predetermination and the employer's failure to proactively disclose information needed to understand and respond to the proposal.

Matched passage: Ms Mathieson also told him the meeting was "not disciplinary", which only added to the confusion about what process was being run and what consequences were being considered.
Lillian Shorter v Waiheke Island Supported Homes Trust [2026] NZERA 54 - summary dismissal for alleged sleeping on night shift held unjustified; six months lost wages ordered and $18,750 compensation

Lillian Shorter was summarily dismissed by Waiheke Island Supported Homes Trust after covert video showed her sleeping during night shifts. She said night workers had a recognised practice of sleeping during combined breaks and challenged both the investigation and the unequal treatment of staff.

Matched passage: Why this case matters Serious misconduct requires fair process: even where an allegation (like sleeping on duty) can amount to serious misconduct, the employer still needs a careful, even-handed investigation and a proportionate response.
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: Contribution is not a substitute for an employer carrying out a proper disciplinary or performance process.

Browse topics