Search Employment Law

Mr Kalkat was placed in work through Easy Recruitment and later told the placement employer considered his performance inadequate. He alleged that his employment had been ended without a fair process and sought compensation and lost wages for unjustified dismissal.

Mr Menzies sought to challenge an ERA compliance outcome arising from remedies originally ordered against a company that later entered liquidation. The background raised disputed accounting, disclosure, separate-legal-personality and recovery issues, but the challenge itself was filed substantially out of time.

This article examines how disputed accounting material in Menzies v Corrigan moved from a liquidator's reference to 'excessive drawings' into evidence used in proceedings seeking personal compliance orders against a company director. It also traces later disclosure issues involving material routed through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office.

A school Board challenged an ERA order temporarily reinstating LGY while the employee's substantive dismissal grievance remained unresolved. The employer relied on alleged serious misconduct, loss of trust and workplace relationship concerns to resist reinstatement.

DQJ challenged an ERA decision refusing interim reinstatement after Inland Revenue ended her employment. The Employment Court had to decide whether preserving the employment relationship pending the substantive grievance was justified without deciding the ultimate merits.

Tasman Rugby Union dismissed chief executive Steven Mitchell after an organisational review became intertwined with later misconduct allegations. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing the process appeared predetermined and that his substantive dismissal grievance had real strength.

Clive Bryham, a long-serving field operations manager, was dismissed after Omexom alleged he mishandled an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report and exposed the business to reputational risk with a key client. He sought interim reinstatement pending final determination of his dismissal and disadvantage grievances.

North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.