Andrew Byrne v Rushmore Distributors (NZ) Limited [2025] NZERA 658 - Unjustified redundancy for poor consultation on selection criteria and redeployment
In Andrew Byrne v Rushmore Distributors (NZ) Limited [2025] NZERA 658 (Auckland), the Employment Relations Authority held a redundancy dismissal was unjustified where the employer failed to fairly consult on selection criteria (and the assessment panel) and failed to consult on redeployment options. The ERA ordered three months lost wages (plus 8% holiday pay and employer KiwiSaver), $16,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation, reimbursement of a company vehicle/fuel benefit at $150 per week (less GST) ...
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Andrew Byrne v Rushmore Distributors (NZ) Limited [2025] NZERA 658 (Auckland, Member Marija Urlich, 20 October 2025).
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 658
- Authority: Employment Relations Authority (ERA)
- Registry: Auckland
- Member: Marija Urlich
- Investigation meeting: 17 to 18 July 2025
- Determination date: 20 October 2025
- Applicant: Andrew Byrne
- Respondent: Rushmore Distributors (NZ) Limited
- How employment ended: Redundancy (role: product manager, Hamer business unit)
Background in plain language
Mr Byrne worked as a product manager. In January 2025, the employer proposed restructuring the Hamer sales and product management functions, including disestablishing affected roles. Mr Byrne was one of two employees ultimately made redundant.
Mr Byrne claimed the redundancy dismissal was unjustified and sought lost wages, compensation, and other remedies. The employer defended its process and said its decisions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.
Key legal points from the decision
- Redundancy can be genuine but still unjustified: Even if an employer has a real business reason to restructure, the dismissal can still be unjustified if consultation and minimum process requirements are not met.
- Selection criteria must be consulted on: It is not enough to mention that criteria exist. A fair and reasonable process requires affected employees to be properly informed and consulted on the criteria and how it will be applied.
- Redeployment requires real engagement: If a redeployment option may exist, an employer must consult and cannot decide "they will not want it" without the employee's input. If the employee could do the role (or be trained to do it), a fair and reasonable employer should offer it.
Good faith and penalties
The ERA found good faith breaches (including failure to disclose relevant information sought and received about a rumour of recordings, and failure to consult about redeployment options). A penalty was imposed as part of the orders.
Orders and remedies
Summary of money orders
| Order | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lost wages (s 123(1)(b)) | 3 months ordinary time pay + 8% holiday pay + employer KiwiSaver |
| Compensation for hurt and humiliation (s 123(1)(c)(i)) | $16,000.00 |
| Loss of benefit - vehicle/fuel (s 123(1)(c)(ii)) | $150.00 / week (less GST) for 3 months |
| Penalty for good faith breach | $1,000.00 |
| Penalty allocation | $500.00 to Mr Byrne $500.00 to the Crown |
No reduction for contributory conduct
The ERA did not reduce remedies for contributory conduct. The redundancy was treated as a no-fault dismissal and Mr Byrne did not contribute in a blameworthy way to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance.
Costs
Costs were reserved. The ERA encouraged the parties to resolve costs, and set a timetable for memoranda if costs could not be agreed.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Related articles
Browse all articles![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments
A practical summary of Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18. The ERA found constructive dismissal and ordered compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday arrears, and repayment of an unlawful premium payment.
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd t/a Kafal Indian Cuisine [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal and wage arrears
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd [2026] NZERA 13. The Authority upheld unjustified dismissal, ordered compensation and lost wages (reduced for contributory conduct), and ordered wage and public holiday arrears with interest.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies
Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered lost wages ($6,656) and compensation ($15,000).
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation
In Jingkai Wang v E|nvoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845, the ERA found the employee was not dismissed and had resigned. A limited unjustified disadvantage was established due to the employer's failure to respond to concerns raised in the resignation email. The ERA awarded $1,500 compensation (after a 25% reduction for blameworthy conduct). Costs were reserved.