Every year, thousands of people apply to the Employment Relations Authority to have it hear their employment disputes.

In 2023, there were 2117 applications received, up from 1970 in 2022 but about the same number as in 2021. There were 1352 matters referred or directed to mediation.

Five key reasons drove the majority of employment disputes, the authority noted in its annual report.

They were:

Personal grievances

There were more than twice as many applications involving personal grievance than any other type of complaint.

Within that, complaints of unjustifiable dismissal were most common, followed by complaints that an employer's actions had resulted in an unjustified disadvantage to an employee.

In one recent case, a person was employed by a kitchen company until, he said, he was dismissed when he tried to return to work after taking leave.

He said he was unjustifiably dismissed and wanted remedies to compensate him for lost income and injury to feelings.

The employer argued he was not unjustifiably dismissed and had abandoned his employment by taking leave.

The authority said the employer had not provided him with a written employment agreement that could have laid out what would constitute abandonment.

It could not demonstrate its actions were justified and there was little or no evidence the employer had investigated its concerns about its leave, it said.

The employee had not had the concerns put to him in a way that he could fairly respond to, and he was not given a chance to comment on whether dismissal was fair and reasonable.

"These were not minor deficiencies and they have resulted in [the employee] being treated unfairly - he was not provided a fair opportunity to understand [the employer's] concerns or provide comment. Even if [he] had taken leave as [the employer] describes - with two days' notice and in the face of objection - its actions cannot meet the statutory justifiability test."

The former employee was awarded $23,100 in lost wages and $16,000 in compensation as well as $1848 in holiday pay.

Arrears

Arrears were the next most common reason for complaints.

In one case, a man sought an order requiring his former employer to pay him arrears of wages. He said he was short paid when he worked as acting duty manager in an East Auckland bar and eatery.

His employment agreement said he agreed to work a minimum of 40 hours a week.

When he worked fewer hours he was not paid for 40. He said there had been a shortfall of 64.75 hours over a 25-week period.

He said he was owed $1726.

The employer argued the 40 hours were not promised.

The authority said the employment terms meant the employee had agreed to reserve at least 40 hours a week for the business and required it to pay him for at least that number of hours.

"While there was some disagreement about whether he had been available to work all the hours referred to, the evidence was not sufficient to establish he had failed to be ready, willing and able to work the agreed minimum of 40 hours on days and times rostered."

The authority said he was entitled to the shortfall.

Breach of legislation

The third most common reason for the authority being asked to rule was an alleged breach of legislation.

In a recent case, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's labour inspector took food companies to the authority over alleged breaches of minimum entitlements and standards. A worker was not consistently paid or given minimum entitlements under the Minimum, Wage Act, Holidays Act or Employment Relations Act.

The authority said the employer had to pay $53,940 within 10 working days, including $18,124 in minimum wage arrears and $35,591 in annual holiday arrears, to be given to the worker.

Breach of good faith

A midwife who lost her position after being alleged to have misled Te Whatu Ora about an interaction with another midwife, and comments about the other midwife's role, argued she had been subject to a breach of good faith.

She was one of about 500 applicants that made claims of that type.

She said her employer had breached good faith by failing to advise her of a complaint and not giving her the opportunity to provide feedback on a finding that she was reluctant to work with another midwife, who felt intimidated.

The authority said the employer had breached the duty of good faith but it said it was not satisfied it was at the level for which a penalty should be imposed.

But the midwife received an award for payment of lost wages and compensation for other aspects of her complaint.

Breach of employment agreement

In one case heard by the authority, a woman claimed her former employer had breached her employment agreement wen it failed to give her a healthy and safe working agreement.

This carries a maximum penalty of $20,000.

The authority said the breach continued even after she brought it to the attention of the management team. "To that extent I find the breach was intentional, it caused [her] ongoing stress and lead to her physical, emotional and financial suffering because [the employer] failed to take any steps to address or remedy it."