When a genuine business restructure can still result in an unjustified redundancy dismissal because consultation, disclosure, selection, redeployment or the final decision was not fair and reasonable.
Redundancy is defined at common law as a situation where an employee's position becomes surplus to the needs of the employer. A redundancy is treated by the Courts as a dismissal, therefore it must be genuine and carried out in a procedurally fair way.
Redundancy is a form of dismissal where the employer says your position is no longer needed. Even if the business decision is genuine, the employer must follow a fair process and the outcome must be one a fair and reasonable employer could have reached (section 103A - test of justification).
A "genuine redundancy" is not about whether you are a good employee - it is about whether the employer genuinely no longer needs the job to be done in the same way. If redundancy is used as a pretext to remove a person, it can be an unjustified dismissal.
There is no automatic statutory redundancy compensation. Entitlement usually depends on your employment agreement (or sometimes a workplace policy or established practice).
If you are facing redundancy (or have already been made redundant), we can assess whether the redundancy was genuine and whether the employer followed a fair process under
section 103A, and if not, raise a Personal Grievance (PG) and pursue appropriate remedies.
Check My Case
A redundancy can fail in more than one way. The employer may not have a genuine business reason for removing the position, or the underlying restructure may be genuine but the dismissal process may still be unjustified because consultation, disclosure, selection or redeployment was not handled fairly. The question is not simply whether the employer can point to a restructure document. The reason for dismissal and the way the decision was reached both matter.
Where a restructure removes only some positions, the selection exercise can become the centre of the dispute. Criteria should relate to the genuine needs of the proposed structure, employees should have a meaningful opportunity to comment on information that affects them, and scoring should not be manipulated to remove a particular person. Ask for the criteria, weightings, scores and the information used to reach them.
A redundancy process should address whether there are suitable alternative roles before employment ends. A vacancy may not be identical to the old job. Depending on the circumstances, experience, transferable skills and reasonable training can all matter when assessing whether redeployment was genuinely considered.
A later advertisement or replacement hire does not automatically prove that the original redundancy was a sham, but it can be important evidence. Compare the new role with the old role: duties, reporting line, hours, location, seniority, skills and when the employer decided the work was still required. Preserve screenshots and job advertisements rather than relying on memory later.
Examples from the ERA case library:
Put the proposal, feedback, selection material, redeployment correspondence and outcome letter together. The issue is usually much easier to assess from the actual documents than from the final redundancy letter alone.
Check My Redundancy Case Personal Grievance guide
When a genuine business restructure can still result in an unjustified redundancy dismissal because consultation, disclosure, selection, redeployment or the final decision was not fair and reasonable.
![Gregory Brian Clarke v Omni Health Limited [2026] NZERA 265 - redundancy substantively justified, but process unfair; $10,000 compensation for disadvantage](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Gregory Clarke was made redundant from Omni Health during financial and organisational change. The ERA accepted the commercial rationale and found no suitable redeployment role, but examined whether a series of consultation and process defects caused a separate unjustified disadvantage even though the redundancy itself was genuine.
FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.
Emily Grinsted, Bunnings' New Zealand People and Culture Manager, brought five unjustified-disadvantage claims while remaining employed. The complaints concerned how criticisms were raised, information and duties, contractual obligations and a short-term incentive bonus.
SAS Builders made Stephanie Martin redundant during a 2024 restructure. The central issues were whether the commercial restructure was genuine, whether the consultation was fair, and whether she should have been considered for a new role created in the business.
Gaetan Duvaux was made redundant by Mega after a selection process in which scoring and comparative information were not fully disclosed and the employee argued the outcome had effectively been chosen in advance. The business case itself was not the only issue: the fairness of selection and consultation was central.
Regional sales manager John Pio was made redundant after Strautmann Hopkins lost the distribution licence underpinning its business. The redundancy had a genuine commercial basis, but Pio was given little warning, very limited time to seek advice and no meaningful opportunity to explore transfer or redeployment.
Thomas Kenna was made redundant from Anztec after a restructuring that the ERA accepted had a genuine business basis. He challenged alleged predetermination and the employer's failure to proactively disclose information needed to understand and respond to the proposal.