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.
![WATSON v ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 265 - disadvantage claim fails but dismissal grievance succeeds](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Mr Watson challenged a written warning and later alleged he was constructively dismissed after his relationship with Alchemy Builders deteriorated and he was removed from a workplace WhatsApp group. Timeliness affected the earlier disadvantage grievance.
Mr Kalkat was placed in work through Easy Recruitment and later told the placement employer considered his performance inadequate. He alleged that his employment had been ended without a fair process and sought compensation and lost wages for unjustified dismissal.
Ms Dwyer brought sexual-harassment, unjustified-disadvantage, constructive-dismissal and good-faith claims arising from her work at Oakvue Bloodstock. The ERA separated the alleged harassment and resignation issues from specific employer actions that actually disadvantaged her employment.
South Pole treated Xinhua Hao as having agreed to resign, despite his repeated denials, then withheld work and continued pressing the resignation dispute. The ERA found those actions caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.
Tammy Stevenson had worked regular cleaning hours for Mountain Chalets for years despite the employer describing her as casual. A dispute over guaranteed hours and a phone conversation then led her to claim dismissal and challenge the employer's treatment of her employment status and holiday entitlements.
Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart after alleging he had prepared food for himself at the workplace while recorded as working, in a dispute that also involved allegations of theft. The ERA examined whether the evidence and disciplinary response could justify dismissal.
Brother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.
Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.
