How the 2026 amendments are reshaping personal grievances

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 introduces significant changes to personal grievances for unjustified dismissal, shifting the focus towards employee conduct and allowing for more procedural flexibility. This article provides a comprehensive overview of how these amendments will impact the way the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court assess unjustified dismissal claims.

Key changes under the Act

Greater weight on employee conduct

Until now, when deciding whether a dismissal was justified, the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court looked primarily at what the employer did – specifically, whether a fair and reasonable employer could have made the same decision. If the employee’s own behaviour contributed to the situation, that was only considered afterwards, and only as a reason to reduce any compensation awarded.

That’s changing. Under the new law, an employee’s own conduct during the disciplinary process is now a formal part of that assessment. For example, if an employee repeatedly refuses to attend meetings, withholds information, or otherwise makes it difficult for an employer to run a fair process, that behaviour can now be taken into consideration regarding whether the dismissal is unjustified.

How employee conduct impacts claims

The impact on remedies depends on how seriously the employee contributed to the situation. There are three levels:

• Serious misconduct – If the employee’s conduct amounts to serious misconduct and contributed to the grievance, no remedy can be awarded at all. No compensation, no reinstatement, nothing.
• Contributory behaviour – If the conduct falls short of serious misconduct but still contributed to the situation, reinstatement and compensation for humiliation or loss of dignity are off the table. The only things potentially recoverable are lost wages or direct costs.
• Reduced remedies – Even in less severe cases, the Employment Relations Authority can now reduce any remaining remedies by up to 100 per cent. In practice, that means an employee could walk away with nothing, even where their conduct wasn’t classified as serious misconduct.

One important gap in the new law: “serious misconduct” isn’t defined. That means it’s up to the Employment Relations Authority and courts to work out what it means in practice – and that takes time. For now, employers and employees won’t always know where the line is, particularly in borderline situations like repeated minor breaches.

There’s also uncertainty around how broadly “contribution” will be applied. It’s still unclear whether situations like poor performance or medical incapacity could be treated as contributing factors – potentially reducing the remedies available to employees in circumstances that have nothing to do with misconduct.

These changes have major implications for both employers and employees:

• Employers should review and update disciplinary and dismissal processes to ensure they’re fair in substance – not just technically compliant.
• Employment agreements and policies may benefit from clearly defining what kinds of conduct could amount to serious misconduct, reducing uncertainty if a personal grievance.
• Employees should be aware that failing to participate in fair processes, or conduct that contributes to the problem, can now significantly limit – or eliminate – personal grievance remedies.
• Both parties may need to seek expert advice when a personal grievance arises to navigate the contribution considerations now in law.

Minor procedural mistakes

This amendment curtails the success of personal grievances based solely on procedural technicalities and aims to help level the playing field for businesses unfamiliar with every nuance of employment law.

The bottom line

The 2026 amendments represent a meaningful shift in how personal grievances are to be assessed – one that places greater responsibility on both parties to act in good faith throughout the employment relationship.

With key terms like “serious misconduct” still undefined, the full picture will only emerge as case law develops. In the meantime, staying informed and seeking expert advice early – before a personal grievance escalates – is the most effective way to manage risk.