Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about a redundancy restructure and whether the employer followed a fair process and had a genuine and justified basis to disestablish the employee's role.

What happened

This case concerns a redundancy restructure in Pamu's finance function after investment in automation (AI robots) reduced manual processing. The employee, Aiga Faamanu Roache (also known as Nu), had worked for Pamu since 2014 and had been the Accounts Payable (AP) Team Leader since 2016.

Pamu proposed reducing headcount across accounts payable and accounts receivable (AR), including disestablishing the AP Team Leader role. At the same time, an AR officer role was proposed to be disestablished, but that AR officer position was vacant. In practical terms, Ms Roache's role was the only occupied role being removed.

Ms Roache first learned of the proposal when she returned from annual leave and was called into a meeting on 18 June 2024. The consultation window was short: written feedback was due by 24 June, with a decision signalled for 25 June and implementation from 1 July.

Ms Roache was shocked and upset that her leadership role was singled out. She asked for clarity and supporting information about why her role, in particular, was said to be surplus in light of the job description's oversight and control functions.

A central practical issue was redeployment. Three roles were identified as potential alternatives, including the AR Team Leader role. However, Ms Roache formed (and retained) the belief that she would have to apply for redeployment, rather than being offered a suitable alternative role as required by the parties' employment agreement. The Authority found that misunderstanding was caused by Pamu's communications and was not corrected in time.

During the consultation period, the person temporarily covering the AR Team Leader role resigned. Ms Roache argued that resignation should have triggered a rethink of the proposal (including whether an alternative leadership structure should be adopted).

The final decision was made, and while Ms Roache was on sick leave she became aware the decision had been communicated. She later resigned, and Pamu accepted her resignation. Pamu also decided to pay an ex-gratia amount equivalent to three months' salary as a goodwill payment, even though there was no contractual obligation to do so.

What the Authority had to decide

The Authority identified these core issues (paraphrased into plain English):

• The issues for investigation and determination are: (a) Were there genuine reasons for the restructure and the decision to disestablish Ms Roache's position? (b) Did Pamu provide Ms Roache with all relevant information in respect of the restructure? (c) Did Pamu properly consult with Ms Roache? (d) Was the decision to disestablish Ms Roache's position predetermined? (e) Did Pamu satisfy its obligations to Ms Roache concerning redeployment? (f) If any of the above results in a finding of unjustified dismissal or disadvantage, what remedies should be rewarded? (g) Should Ms Roache be awarded lost wages in light of the redundancy compensation payment she received? Background to the restructure proposal

Key findings in plain English

• Redundancy is assessed under the statutory justification test (s 103A) and the consultation and good faith obligations that apply to a redundancy proposal.
• Pamu could point to genuine efficiency drivers from automation. But it still had to clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role (with its oversight functions) had become superfluous - and why the work could be absorbed elsewhere.
• The Authority found Pamu's explanation did not sufficiently show the AP Team Leader role was surplus to business requirements, and did not show that obvious alternatives were properly considered (including whether the AR Team Leader role should instead be disestablished or reconfigured).
• The information provided during consultation was not sufficient for Ms Roache to understand how and why her specific role had been selected, and she did not have a meaningful opportunity to interrogate or discuss the supporting material.
• The consultation process looked like a consultation in form, but the timeframes were short and the responses to feedback were recorded after the decision was effectively made.
• Redeployment was not handled properly: Ms Roache's mistaken belief that she needed to apply for redeployment acted as a barrier, and the Authority held the mistake was Pamu's responsibility.
• Overall, Pamu did not justify its decision to disestablish Ms Roache's role, and the redundancy dismissal was therefore unjustified.

Remedies and orders

The Authority ordered Pamu to pay the employee the following (within 28 days):

• Compensation for hurt and humiliation: $18,000.00.
• Lost wages: $8,900.15 net.
• Payment deadline: within 28 days.
• Costs reserved (a memorandum process applies if the parties cannot agree).
• Ex-gratia payment: Pamu's separate three-month goodwill payment was not treated as lost-wages compensation and was not used to cancel out the reimbursement award.

Why this case matters

• Automation does not end the inquiry: Even where technology reduces manual work, the employer still needs a clear and evidenced explanation for why a specific role is genuinely surplus and why alternatives were not suitable.
• Consultation must be real: Short timeframes, limited data, and a process that feels locked-in can make a redundancy unjustified.
• Redeployment communications matter: If an employee is wrongly left believing they must "apply" for suitable alternatives when their agreement requires an offer, that mistake can undermine the employer's justification.
• Ex-gratia payments are not a free pass: A goodwill redundancy payment does not automatically wipe out statutory remedies for unjustified dismissal.

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.