Search Employment Law

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.

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.

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.

FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.

Neilsons Lawyers suspended Mr Yaqub during an investigation into alleged conduct. He later resigned, alleging that the continuing suspension and the way the investigation was handled had made continued employment untenable.

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

Philip Moller was dismissed by Cardinal Logistics after refusing a drug and alcohol test said to arise from a safety complaint. The case turned on whether Cardinal had genuine and reasonable grounds to require the test and whether it fairly verified the allegation before suspending and dismissing him.