Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for personal grievance
![The Estate of Samuel Keast v Playground Centre Limited [2026] NZERA 136 - preliminary decision: estate could not raise a new personal grievance after death; Australian entity was employer at the time; ERA lacked jurisdiction](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
After Samuel Keast died while working in Melbourne, his estate sought to pursue employment claims, including constructive dismissal, against a New Zealand company. The preliminary issue was whether a personal grievance existed before his death, who employed him in Australia, and whether the ERA had jurisdiction over the named respondent.
Four Krazy Price Mart employees said they routinely worked about 60 hours over six days while being paid for substantially fewer hours and were later dismissed when the business was sold without adequate consultation. The case combined personal grievances with extensive minimum-entitlement claims.
Mr Ward dismissed Mr Boyd by letter and text message on 21 June 2024 and then did not participate in the ERA investigation despite being aware of the investigation meeting. The claim proceeded on Mr Boyd's evidence and documents.
Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.
Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.
Mr Blignaut challenged Waste Management's treatment of him during a workplace conflict, including alleged bullying, suspension and pressure to resign, before he was ultimately dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The ERA considered both the pre-dismissal disadvantage claims and the termination itself.
Ms Thing's dispute with South Pole IP Holding concerned whether the end of her employment was a dismissal or resignation and whether the employer's earlier conduct had unjustifiably disadvantaged her. The case required the ERA to distinguish direct or constructive dismissal from separate disadvantage grievances.
Four workers at Miaodi's Laundromat alleged their employment was ended without a fair process and that significant wage and holiday entitlements had not been paid. The proceeding also involved personal liability and penalties for minimum employment-standard breaches.
