ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 1-8 of 75 results
Gumbeze v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki [2024] NZEmpC 133 - serious misconduct finding overturned

Oranga Tamariki summarily dismissed social worker Bigson Gumbeze after an external investigation into complaints about his supervision, dealings with managers and aspects of his practice. The ERA upheld the dismissal, but he challenged that result afresh in the Employment Court.

Matched passage: UrlEncode(judgmentUrl); } Gumbeze v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki [2024] NZEmpC 133 - serious misconduct finding overturned Bigson Gumbeze lost his unjustified-dismissal claim in the Employment Relations Authority but succeeded on a de novo challenge.
Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor [2025] NZERA 818 - misconduct, medical/incapacity; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.

Matched passage: A fair and reasonable employer could not conclude that Ms Kaushal's behaviour on 6 September amounted to serious misconduct.
Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 - summary dismissal held unjustified; reinstatement declined; $20,000 compensation after contribution

Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.

Matched passage: Serious misconduct threshold: whether the established conduct was capable of being characterised as serious misconduct (and if so, whether summary dismissal was warranted in all the circumstances).
FHE v Auckland Transport [2026] NZERA 552 - justified dismissal but unjustified initial suspension

Auckland Transport investigated FHE over serious conduct involving a former employee with whom he had been in a relationship. Before completing a fair consultation process over suspension, AT had already effectively removed him from work for two days.

Matched passage: Auckland Transport was justified in dismissing parking officer FHE after finding serious misconduct.
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: Ultimately, The letter then drew attention to examples of serious misconduct in QN's employment agreement and a company disciplinary and dismissal policy relating to a conflict-of-interest activity and failure to disclose.
Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: The conduct could amount to serious misconduct The Authority did not minimise the safety issue.
Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

Modern Transport Engineers had evidence capable of supporting serious-misconduct concerns against Kyle Spencer, while also counterclaiming for unauthorised private work and purchases. However, it stood him down early, relied on undisclosed staff discussions and ran a process carrying signs of predetermination.

Matched passage: MTE advised (in a letter dated 22 February 2024) that it had made findings of serious misconduct and that termination was its preliminary view, seeking Mr Spencer's response.
Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: 08 gross Compensation: $15,000 Contribution: no reduction Costs: payable to Mr Resink Serious allegations without adequate particulars Mr Resink worked as a recruitment consultant for Employment Services Limited.

Browse topics