ClickCease

Results for warnings

Showing 65-70 of 70 results
BALI v R1i TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 409 - Webex dismissal without fair process

R1i Technology dismissed Mr Bali during a Webex meeting and then confirmed the decision in writing. The employer did not participate in the ERA proceeding and the evidence showed no meaningful process satisfying the minimum statutory tests of procedural fairness.

Matched passage: Mr Bali's employment was terminated without warning during the Webex meeting of 7 August 2024.
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: In the end, By letter of 15 December 2024, FT Ltd's counsel, advised that they rejected the personal grievance claiming the action of setting up a meeting to discuss performance concerns was not untoward and had not been escalated to a performance plan or formal warning.
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: The basis for the allegation and issuing of the final warning included that there was a material impact from the delay and that the recording was inconsistent with what Ms O'Brien had been asserting as to the conduct of the meeting on 8 June 2022.
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: When Buci later insisted Ms Jury sign a casual agreement before she could keep working, and issued a final warning when she refused, the Authority found the conduct repudiatory.
Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.

Matched passage: The Authority also noted that even during a probation period an employer must still act fairly and give feedback and warning (see Nelson Air Ltd v NZ Airline Pilots Association).
STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 - employer challenge unsuccessful

STL Linehaul challenged an ERA determination that had found Leo Waters' redundancy unjustified and awarded him remedies. The Employment Court proceeding tested whether the employer could overturn that employee-side outcome and the amounts flowing from it.

Matched passage: A reader of the underlying Authority case does not need a warning that its core outcome was later overturned by [2022] NZEmpC 114.

Browse topics