ClickCease

Results for performance improvement plan

Showing 1-8 of 48 results
Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR believed Briar Kennedy was on a 90-day trial, but the agreement given after she started contained no trial clause. The employer then purported to extend the nonexistent trial into probation and dismissed her after 97 days on qualification and performance grounds.

Matched passage: The performance process was inadequate Adulto did not give Ms Kennedy advance notice of the many concerns raised at the 3 May meeting.
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon had genuine, documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance and safety, but knew English was a serious barrier and still used English for critical disciplinary communications rather than Punjabi. His suspension and dismissal followed without a clear opportunity to understand and answer the case against him.

Matched passage: Mr Singh said he did not remember or understand that he was on a performance improvement plan.
Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Matched passage: Despite that knowledge, Ms Moss continued as the primary standards assessor and evaluator throughout the third performance-management plan.
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: It also included an outcomes section which recorded that Mr Colyer was to receive a verbal or written warning and that a performance improvement plan would be implemented.
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation told automotive technician Layth Abu-Laban that his employment would end because an alleged one-year contract would not be renewed. His agreement was actually permanent, and the employer later relied on allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft.

Matched passage: No performance management Mr Abu-Laban accepted that, from time to time, Mr Khan told him his work rate was too slow.
Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

Brandt Tractor removed sales manager Nicholas Pilcher from the workplace on 'special leave', took his phone and laptop and then dismissed him five days later over four bullying and harassment complaints. He was not given the underlying complaints, even in redacted form, or a genuine chance to answer them.

Matched passage: The first complaint and the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) On 16 January 2024 Brandt was alerted to concerns from another employee (anonymised as MJP) about alleged harassment and intimidation.
PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED [2025] NZERA 571 - abandonment process unfair; dismissal unjustified

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

Matched passage: The determination records that An unjustified disadvantage claim related to an alleged performance improvement plan was withdrawn by Ms Parker-Jones at the investigation meeting on 30 July 2025.
RAY YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED [2025] NZERA 64 - Unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (warning)

Synergy Nutrition issued Ray Yu a written warning and later dismissed him amid concerns including phone use and his ability to work night shifts. The ERA separately assessed the fairness of the warning, dismissal and Yu's own conduct under the contribution provisions.

Matched passage: ... Aside from the written warning, which has been found to be unjustified, there was no performance improvement plan put in place for Mr Yu, as described in the policy handbook or written notice to him that SNL was concerned his refusal to work night shift may put him in ...

Browse topics