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.
![HARRY SAMPSON v LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED [2026] NZERA 17 - Preliminary time limit ruling; grievance in time; mediation directed.](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Harry Sampson's proceeding against Lyttelton Port Company raised a preliminary 90-day time-limit issue before the merits of his personal grievance could be investigated. The employer argued the grievance was out of time; Mr Sampson relied on the communications by which he said it had been raised.
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.
George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.
Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.
JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.
Jingkai Wang claimed Envoco had dismissed him and subjected him to bullying and an unsafe workplace, while the employer said he resigned. The evidence also included covert recordings and a trial clause signed only after work had begun.
Jimmy Nelson was dismissed by The Digger Man after repeated attendance problems and unexplained absences. The employer had genuine concerns, but the issue was whether it gave him a final, fair opportunity to understand the seriousness of the latest incidents and explain himself before termination.
Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.
