Unilever Wins on Dismissal Process

Case: IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd

In a recent decision, the Employment Relations Authority confirmed the long-standing principle that an employer’s decision to dismiss will not be rendered unjustified by minor procedural imperfections, provided the dismissal itself is substantively fair and the overall process meets the test of reasonableness.

In IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd, the ERA considered a claim that Unilever’s disciplinary process had deviated in minor respects from ideal procedural form. However, it held that employment law does not require a process to be flawless or “microscopically” examined. Instead, the core question is whether the employer acted as a fair and reasonable employer could in all the circumstances.

The decision reflects a pragmatic and employer-supportive approach, reiterating that substance will prevail over form where the disciplinary outcome is justified and fair.

Key Points:

  • The decision reinforces the ERA’s preference for practical reasonableness over rigid procedural compliance.

  • Employers who undertake a good-faith disciplinary process and reach a reasonable conclusion are unlikely to be penalised for minor technical oversights.

  • That said, a structured and well-documented process remains your best defence—especially if the matter progresses to the Employment Relations Authority.


This is a reassuring decision for employers managing complex conduct issues. It provides clarity that a dismissal need not fail based on incidental procedural defects.

Employers are encouraged to seek advice early in disciplinary processes to ensure they meet the standard of fairness expected by the ERA.

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

Previous
Previous

Serious Misconduct Justifies Dismissal Despite Imperfect Process

Next
Next

Secret Recordings in the Workplace