"We caught them stealing on camera. Can we dismiss them on the spot?"
Almost always, no. Even with rock-solid evidence, New Zealand law doesn't care how bad the conduct looks. It cares whether you followed a fair process before deciding to end someone's employment. Skip that step, and even an open-and-shut case can turn into an expensive personal grievance.
Summary dismissal isn't instant dismissal
These two get confused constantly, and the mix-up is what gets employers into trouble. Summary dismissal, meaning no notice period, is not the same as instant dismissal, meaning no process. An employee's last day can be immediate, but the decision to get there still has to be reached fairly. Investigate, put the allegations to the employee in writing, let them genuinely respond and weigh that response before deciding. There are no shortcuts, no matter how strong the evidence looks going in.
Every dismissal gets measured against section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which asks two questions. Did you have genuine grounds, based on what a fair and reasonable employer could have concluded at the time? And was your process fair and reasonable? Both need a yes. You can be completely right about what happened and still lose the case purely on process.
Where employers actually get caught
The traps are familiar, and any one of them can sink an otherwise strong case: dismissing in the heat of the moment before investigating, signalling the outcome before hearing the employee's side ("your last day will be..."), not sharing the actual evidence before the meeting, giving unreasonably short response times, or skipping the offer of a support person.
An admission from the employee doesn't fix this either. You still need to confirm they understand what they're admitting to, weigh any mitigating factors and genuinely consider whether dismissal is proportionate, rather than treating it as automatic once they've said yes.
Doing it right, fast
A defensible process doesn't need to be slow. Investigate first. Suspend on full pay if you need to protect evidence or safety. Just remember process before doing that too! Put the allegations in writing with the evidence attached. Meet, with a support person available. Genuinely weigh the response you get. Confirm the outcome in writing. Done well, this can take days rather than weeks, but every step still has to happen.
What's changed since February 2026
From February 2026, changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 give the Authority and the Employment Court clear power to reduce personal grievance remedies by up to 100% where the employee's own serious misconduct contributed to the outcome, even if the employer's process wasn't perfect.
In practice, this means an employee might still technically "win" on a process technicality but walk away with little or nothing if the underlying conduct, such as theft, violence, or serious dishonesty, was genuinely serious. It's a real financial buffer for employers who act quickly but imperfectly in serious cases.
It isn't a free pass. The downtime and costs of defending a claim can far outweigh the costs of simply following proper process. A fair process is still your best protection. This change softens the financial hit if you get the substance right but stumble on procedure, it doesn't replace the need to run one.
The bottom line
Serious misconduct can justify dismissal without notice, but speed should never come at the cost of fairness. If you're tempted to act instantly, pause, secure the situation, and get advice first. It's far cheaper than fixing it afterwards.
Facing a misconduct issue right now? Get in touch before you act, not after.