Employment Law

A truck driver worked one day for a small Waikato haulage company before being terminated by email under a supposed 90-day trial clause. The ERA found the trial clause was not in the signed agreement (only a probation clause), so the employee could bring an unjustified dismissal claim. Although...

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

ERA held a night shift recovery support worker was unjustifiably dismissed after video evidence of sleeping was relied on, in circumstances where night staff had a legitimate expectation they could sleep during combined breaks and management had not clearly changed that practice. Reinstatement was declined, but the...

A New Zealand Police Senior Sergeant deployed to Fiji succeeded in a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified disadvantage. ERA found Police acted unfairly by making adverse findings without a proper process, failing to properly deal with her bullying complaint, using those findings in relation to an external role...

The ERA rejected the employee's constructive dismissal claim but upheld unjustified disadvantage findings because the employer ran a flawed, slow investigation and left the employee in the dark about process and return-to-work steps. Orders included $15,000 compensation, a $3,000 penalty for...