Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about an unjustified redundancy dismissal at Radio Waatea / UMA Broadcasting Limited, including consultation failures, redeployment issues, and a Wages Protection Act penalty for withholding final pay. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Adam Gifford worked at Radio Waatea / UMA Broadcasting Limited for about 18 years as a senior journalist and English news editor. In 2024 UMA appointed a new general manager, held a staff hui to gather ideas, and prepared an internal report for the Board covering financials, market data, strategy and a proposed new structure.

On 11 September 2024 staff were emailed a general restructure proposal. It proposed merging English and Maori newsroom functions and stated that consultation would follow. It also flagged that outcomes could include redeployment or redundancies, and that new roles could be created.

Mr Gifford met with the general manager during the consultation phase and provided feedback. He said the discussions focused on how a merged newsroom could operate and he was not clearly told his own role might be disestablished. On Friday 4 October 2024 the employer issued a notice letter disestablishing his position, and shortly afterwards emailed staff confirming that the English newsroom would lose roles including Mr Gifford's.

Mr Gifford was paid four weeks in lieu of notice to 4 November 2024 and raised a Personal Grievance (PG) shortly afterwards. He also sought a penalty because UMA withheld his final pay for a period, using the withheld wages to pressure him to return company property.

Legal framework

Redundancy dismissals are assessed under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether the employer's actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. In redundancy situations, good faith obligations under s 4 are central. In practice that means the employer must share relevant information so feedback can be meaningful, clearly communicate when a specific position is at risk, provide a genuine chance to comment, and genuinely consider the employee's responses (including redeployment options) before making final decisions.

Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified

The Authority accepted UMA had a genuine business reason to restructure (tight funding and a desire to reduce duplication and inefficiency). The Authority was not deciding whether UMA chose the best structure, only whether the reasons were genuine and the process met the statutory standard.

The problem for UMA was not the genuineness of the restructure. It was the consultation process as applied to Mr Gifford. The Authority found key information that existed in the Board report (which informed the proposal) was not fairly shared with him. The general 11 September email did not give specifics, and there was no clear written record showing that Mr Gifford was told his own position was at risk. The Authority found UMA made assumptions about what he understood, and that disconnect affected his ability to provide meaningful feedback.

Redeployment was also mishandled. The Authority found there was no documented discussion with Mr Gifford about possible alternative roles (including a newly created role and a vacant editor role). Any suggestion to "chat on alternatives" came too late, because the employer had already effectively announced he was not moving into the new structure.

Taken cumulatively, the Authority held UMA's actions were not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. The redundancy dismissal was therefore unjustified and involved a breach of good faith obligations.

Remedies and penalty

• Lost wages: three months' ordinary time remuneration of $24,230.77 gross, with interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, and the employer KiwiSaver contribution (with appropriate deductions).
• Compensation: $19,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings (assessed as moderate harm in the context of long service and the way the termination occurred).
• Contribution: no reduction (no basis to find blameworthy conduct contributing to a redundancy dismissal).
• Penalty (withheld final pay): $1,500 for breach of s 13 Wages Protection Act 1983, split 50/50 between Mr Gifford and the Crown.

Orders made

• Compensation: $19,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i).
• Lost wages: $24,230.77 gross for three months' ordinary time remuneration, plus interest and KiwiSaver employer contribution (with appropriate deductions).
• Penalty: $1,500 for breach of s 13 Wages Protection Act 1983 (half to Mr Gifford, half for transfer into a Crown account).
• Time to pay: within 28 days of the determination date (23 February 2026).
• Costs: reserved; timetable set if costs are not agreed.

Practical takeaways

• A redundancy can be genuine but still unjustified if the employer does not meet consultation and good faith duties.
• Share the key information that drives the proposal (not just a general email) so employees can give meaningful feedback.
• Be explicit if a specific employee's job is at risk. Do not assume they will infer it.
• Redeployment is part of a fair redundancy process. Discuss alternative roles before confirming termination.
• Withholding final pay to force return of property is risky and can attract penalties under the Wages Protection Act.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.