Search Employment Law

Delivery drivers Ziyu Xiao, Youtian Yang and Limei Liu lost access to Fast Horse's app or WhatsApp work channels after raising concerns about their work and pay. The ERA examined whether those digital cut-offs amounted to dismissals and whether the employer had also caused unjustified disadvantage beforehand.

Akitio Trucking dismissed Mr Swenson after concluding he punched another driver. He argued the employer had failed to deal with earlier theft allegations and that its investigation and dismissal process were unjustified.

Clive Bryham, a long-serving field operations manager, was dismissed after Omexom alleged he mishandled an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report and exposed the business to reputational risk with a key client. He sought interim reinstatement pending final determination of his dismissal and disadvantage grievances.

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.

A truck driver said Transport (Waimate) had effectively sent him away after a difficult meeting and then prevented a normal return to work. The employer maintained that he had resigned, making the central issue whether its actions objectively amounted to dismissal.

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.

Silvertime's store manager summoned Yucen Xi to an evening meeting without explaining its purpose, told her to resign or be fired, demanded her key and called security before any allegations had been fairly raised with her.

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.