Dismissed, made redundant, pushed to resign, dismissed under a 90-day trial or otherwise treated unfairly at work? Start with the issue below, check the time limits, and work from the actual documents and evidence.
![Kevin Whelan v The Board of Trustees of Lindisfarne College [2026] NZERA 558 - justified dismissal but notice breach caused disadvantage](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Lindisfarne College dismissed long-serving IT manager Kevin Whelan after a serious comment to students while showing CCTV footage of an accident. Although the misconduct could justify dismissal, the College paid four weeks in lieu rather than complying with the collective agreement's one-month notice mechanism or properly invoking instant dismissal.
Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and honesty in front of staff and told her she could go if she could not do the job. Ms Kim left immediately after the confrontation.
Electrical Importing Co agreed Valerie Leech's core job terms and told her when to start before presenting a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause. It later relied on that clause to dismiss her.
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.
BAZ had genuine commercial reasons to make Luo's role redundant, but the employee was not given a fair opportunity to engage with the proposal or meaningful redeployment possibilities before the decision was made.
Barfoot & Thompson dismissed senior property manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. An imminent neurological assessment had not been obtained and the proposed alternative role did not fit clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours.
Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea were made redundant by Pacific Island Business Development Trust during a flawed restructure. Their Employment Court challenge focused on pre-dismissal disadvantage during the process and the proper level of lost-remuneration and compensation remedies.
A school Board challenged an ERA order temporarily reinstating LGY while the employee's substantive dismissal grievance remained unresolved. The employer relied on alleged serious misconduct, loss of trust and workplace relationship concerns to resist reinstatement.
