ClickCease

Results for disciplinary

Showing 1-8 of 108 results
Brent Colyer v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [2026] NZERA 444 - flawed disciplinary process, written warning and unjustified disadvantage

Electrician Brent Colyer was investigated and given a written warning by New Zealand Aluminium Smelters after a gantry-crane incident involving another employee. He later resigned, alleging both unjustified disadvantage from the disciplinary process and constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Separate incident investigation from discipline: if an incident review turns into potential misconduct, say so clearly.
OCO v ZUA [2025] NZERA 790 - Constructive dismissal after unfair suspension and defective disciplinary process

OCO resigned after being suspended and put through a disciplinary process by ZUA. The case centred on whether the suspension and investigation were fair and whether the employer's cumulative conduct was serious enough to make the resignation a constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: ZUA then started a disciplinary process against OCO while refusing to identify the complainants or properly set out the allegations.
RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469 - disciplinary process and dismissal procedurally unfair

Mr Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.

Matched passage: After that, Disciplinary process [24] On the morning of 30 August 2024, Mr Cals gave Mr Raina a letter raising the incident of mobile phone usage whilst driving.
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Matched passage: pdf"; } David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 Big B Cartage called truck driver David Turner to a disciplinary meeting without first identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message on which it relied.
MOKE v RAUKURA HAUORA O TAINUI TRUST [2025] NZERA 48 - external investigation and disciplinary process partly unjustified

Ms Moke faced complaints and an external investigation while employed by Raukura Hauora O Tainui Trust. The case examined the fairness of the investigation, disciplinary steps and the Trust's eventual preliminary and final conclusions, including whether tikanga and kaupapa-based processes altered the statutory fairness requirements.

Matched passage: Later, It continued (bold emphasis added): Depending on the seriousness of the performance concern, or degree of misconduct alleged, the (quoted wording omitted) may be as simple as holding some fact- finding meetings.
Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was disciplined and dismissed by Talley's after disputes surrounding a health and safety representative election and communications involving other employees. The case focused on whether Talley's properly investigated the competing accounts and relevant messages before deciding serious misconduct was established.

Matched passage: Good faith breach The Authority separately found that Talley's failure to carry out a fair disciplinary process breached the duty of good faith.
Deborah Coley v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 530 - redundancy threat used to force variation of guaranteed hours

Deborah Coley's agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours each week, but Bupa sought to vary that guarantee by averaging hours across a six-week roster and presented redundancy as the alternative if she refused. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning added a second strand to the disadvantage claim.

Matched passage: A later disciplinary investigation and written warning also caused unjustified disadvantage.
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Matched passage: Context mattered: Mr Heyes had no authority to summarily dismiss staff, and Mr Putt knew disciplinary matters at GWF were normally dealt with through a formal process rather than an instant on-the-spot firing.

Browse topics