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.
![RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469 - disciplinary process and dismissal procedurally unfair](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Mr Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.
Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.
Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.
Southshore Marine attempted to rely on a 90-day trial when dismissing Mr Gillard after concerns about his work. The timing of when employment actually commenced and the complete absence of a fair performance, conduct or capacity process were central issues.
WRW resigned after McCarthy Enterprises proposed changes to her work and the relationship deteriorated. The ERA had to decide whether the employer's conduct was sufficiently serious and causative to convert that resignation into a constructive dismissal and whether any wage loss was proved.
KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.
Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.
