5 Cases Every Employer Should Know in 2025

What they mean—and how to stay on the right side of the law

Staying informed on recent Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court decisions is one of the smartest things an employer can do. Here are five decisions from the past year that have clarified, reinforced, or strengthened employer rights in New Zealand.

1. IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd

Outcome: Dismissal upheld despite minor process flaws

The Employment Court confirmed that employers aren’t expected to run flawless disciplinary processes. In this case, Unilever’s process had some imperfections—but the Court focused on whether the decision to dismiss was fair and reasonable overall.

What this means for you:
Substance matters more than procedural perfection. If you act fairly and document your reasoning, minor missteps won’t undermine your case.

Knowhow Tip: Train managers on reasonable process, not rigid scripts. Focus on fair action and good documentation.

2. Morrison v NZ Post

Outcome: Dismissal justified despite a less-than-ideal investigation

An employee was dismissed for serious misconduct. While the investigation wasn’t perfect, the Court found the employer had reached a justified decision. Serious misconduct, reasonably established, can override procedural flaws.

What this means for you:
Your process doesn’t have to be watertight to be lawful—especially if the misconduct is clear.

Knowhow Tip: Serious issues? Act decisively—but ensure you’ve given the employee a chance to respond.

3. Hailwood v Eastco Gold Ltd (t/a Palmers Remuera)

Outcome: Trial period invalid—employer liable

The ERA found the 90-day trial clause was invalid because it was signed after the employee had already started work. The employer was ordered to pay over $2,000 in penalties.

What this means for you:
Trial periods only protect you if they’re correctly implemented—before employment begins. Even one day late makes it unenforceable.

Knowhow Tip: Never let an employee start without a signed agreement. Build in buffer time during onboarding.

4. High Performance Sport NZ Ltd v Athletes’ Cooperative Inc

Outcome: No right to bargain—no employment relationship

This decision clarified that a union cannot initiate collective bargaining unless it has actual employees working for the target employer. The case protects employers from unions acting outside the bounds of genuine employment relationships.

What this means for you:
You’re not obliged to engage in bargaining with a union unless there’s a lawful employment relationship in place.

Knowhow Tip: Unsure about your union obligations? Get advice early—especially when approached unexpectedly.

5. Declining to Renew a Fixed-Term Contract

Outcome: Employer not liable contract expired as agreed

Several recent cases upheld employers’ right to end genuine fixed-term employment where the reasons were clearly outlined in the employment agreement and no expectation of renewal was created.

What this means for you:
If your fixed-term contract is clear and lawful, you can let it expire—without fear of unjustified dismissal claims.

Knowhow Tip: Always include a genuine business reason and be cautious about offering extensions that could imply permanence.

Final Word: Reasonable Employers Win

The overarching message from the Courts is clear: Employers who act fairly, reasonably, and transparently will generally be protected.

Yes dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” helps. But fear of making small mistakes shouldn’t stop you from managing your team with confidence.

Need help reviewing your agreements, processes, or dismissal procedures?
Contact Knowhow.

We translate the law into real-world practice that protects your business.