ClickCease

Results for warnings

Showing 1-8 of 70 results
Adarsh Chand v Professional Stylish Barber Shop Limited [2026] NZERA 244 - unjustified constructive dismissal after unjustified warnings; $12,000 compensation + $14,560 reimbursement

Adarsh Chand resigned from Professional Stylish Barber Shop after disciplinary warnings and employment treatment he said had destroyed the relationship. The ERA examined whether the warning was substantively and procedurally justified and whether the resulting resignation was caused by the employer's breaches.

Matched passage: Key events leading to resignation First warning: 13 February 2024 In early February 2024, a customer complaint arose about a haircut.
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: Mr Dixon told Mr Colyer his preliminary view was that a written warning was appropriate.
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: Story in plain English This decision deals with whether a written warning and dismissal were justified, and what remedies (if any) should follow.
Jacob Maarschalk v West Auckland Trust Services Limited [2024] NZERA 333 - Unjustified disadvantage found over rostering changes and flawed final written warning; $8,500 ordered

Jacob Maarschalk was contracted for 25 hours a week but was regularly rostered for substantially more at West Auckland Trust Services. The dispute concerned later roster changes and a final written warning, including whether he was given a fair opportunity to comment before those decisions affected his employment.

Matched passage: ... Whether the employee had full-time hours; whether rostering changes and a final written warning were unjustified actions; remedies and contribution. Outcome: Unjustified disadvantage established (rostering process and warning process). Compensation of $8,500 ordered. Costs ...
DRUMMOND v THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 82 - 90-day limit: warning grievance in time, earlier claims out

Jackson Drummond sought to pursue a series of disadvantage, discrimination and good-faith complaints against Massey University, some dating back many months before his December 2023 grievance letter. The preliminary issue was which claims had actually been raised within the statutory 90-day period.

Matched passage: (viii) By issuing him with a final warning on or about 3 November 2023.
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Matched passage: Final warning upheld: The Authority held that the final written warning was not unjustified.
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 659 - apprentice dismissed by text after repeated wage problems

Apprentice builder Nicholas Stalker experienced repeated late and missing wage payments before being dismissed by text for alleged performance and misconduct without prior warnings, investigation or an opportunity to respond. The ERA upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and ordered compensation, 13 weeks' lost wages, substantial arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, a penalty and costs.

Matched passage: He said no such allegations had previously been raised and no warnings, investigation or disciplinary meeting had occurred.
JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $8,933 remedies (reduced) plus wage arrears.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

Matched passage: There is no paper trail of prior meetings with feedback, warnings or investigation undertaken relating to the incident on 26 February 2024.

Browse topics