ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 65-72 of 270 results
JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified

Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that Mr Jayalath also claimed Infosys' process leading to his dismissal was flawed because he was not given ample opportunity to seek legal advice and properly respond to Infosys' allegations.
Olliver & Taylor v Te Araroa [2025] NZERA 312 - fixed-term dismissals unjustified; $37,500 and $27,500 compensation

Community Connectors Daynah Olliver and Sheena Taylor were employed on fixed-term agreements that did not properly record the statutory reasons for the fixed terms. Te Araroa then tried to end both employments early without a fair process.

Matched passage: No fair dismissal process There was no meaningful employment process before termination.
Unjustified redundancy: when redundancy becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance

When a genuine business restructure can still result in an unjustified redundancy dismissal because consultation, disclosure, selection, redeployment or the final decision was not fair and reasonable.

Matched passage: Redundancy can still be an unfair dismissal An employer must act as a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time dismissal or action occurred and an employer must act in good faith.
Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.

Matched passage: Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified The Authority accepted UMA had a genuine business reason to restructure (tight funding and a desire to reduce duplication and inefficiency).
Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

Matched passage: The dismissal process was materially unfair JITL resolved on 5 December 2024 to terminate Mr Singh's employment and notified him on 9 December.
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

Corrections dismissed prison officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi for alleged unjustified use of force after an incident that also resulted in a criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted on self-defence grounds. The ERA examined the employer's independent investigation, the evidence available and the fairness of the serious-misconduct conclusion.

Matched passage: Those matters did not validate the original dismissal process.
Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Traffica summarily dismissed foreman Selwyn McDonald on site after a heated exchange with a director. The ERA accepted that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but he was given no chance to answer before being fired.

Matched passage: The later dismissal letter referred to the failed drug test, but the dismissal itself occurred during the worksite exchange on 14 May 2024.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal

George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.

Matched passage: Why the dismissal was unjustified Once the Authority found the trial clause was invalid, the dismissal had to be assessed under the normal test of justification (Employment Relations Act 2000, section 103A).

Browse topics