Andrew McFarlane v Stuff Limited [2026] NZERA 623

Stuff Limited had genuine commercial reasons to restructure its Christchurch agency sales operation, but that did not make Andrew McFarlane's redundancy dismissal fair. The Employment Relations Authority found Stuff failed to first establish that his existing Senior Account Director role was actually surplus, then required him to compete for a new role that substantially reproduced his existing work, and did not actively explore redeployment.

A genuine restructure did not answer whether his own job was surplus

Mr McFarlane had worked for Stuff since 2011 and became a Senior Account Director in 2022. In 2024 some of his programmatic advertising responsibilities were moved into a newly created role occupied by another employee. In April 2025 Stuff proposed to disestablish both positions and create a single Senior Account Director - Agency role.

The Authority accepted Stuff had genuine commercial reasons to reconsider the structure of the agency sales team, including declining revenue and duplication between the two positions. The problem was the next step. Stuff treated Mr McFarlane's role as disestablished without first carrying out a proper analysis of whether the work of his existing position had actually disappeared or materially changed.

Made to compete for substantially the same work

Stuff ran a closed contestable process between Mr McFarlane and the other incumbent for the new role. Mr McFarlane questioned the criteria and the weight being given to incumbent knowledge and experience. The Authority found those concerns were not meaningfully addressed.

The new position substantially incorporated Mr McFarlane's existing duties, including responsibilities that had earlier been moved away from him. On the Authority's analysis, a proper comparison of the old and proposed roles would more likely than not have led to Mr McFarlane being reconfirmed rather than required to compete for his own work.

Selection and consultation were too superficial

Stuff had supplied a consultation pack and held consultation meetings, but procedural form was not enough. The Authority described the implementation of the restructure as flawed and muddled because the central question - whether Mr McFarlane's existing role was truly surplus - had not been properly answered before the contestable process was imposed.

The selection criteria also created a disparity in treatment. The other employee had previously been retained through the creation of a new position when duties were moved from Mr McFarlane, but Mr McFarlane was later required to compete against that employee for a role that substantially contained his own work. The Authority found the process fell outside what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.

Redeployment required active consideration

The termination correspondence referred Mr McFarlane to Stuff's careers website, but the Authority found this was not enough to discharge the employer's good-faith obligations. Available positions were not actively explored with him and reassignment to the new Senior Account Director role was not properly considered as an alternative to dismissal.

The decision reinforces that redeployment is not simply an invitation to search an employer's vacancy page. Depending on the circumstances, good faith requires the employer to actively identify and discuss realistic alternatives before employment is terminated.

Remedies

The Authority awarded $25,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation. It also awarded 13 weeks' lost remuneration of $28,540.78 gross plus $2,300.20 holiday pay, a total of $30,840.98 gross, together with interest. There was no reduction for contribution because Mr McFarlane had not engaged in blameworthy conduct contributing to the grievance.

Why this case matters

McFarlane v Stuff is a useful redundancy decision where the commercial reason for restructuring was genuine but the dismissal still failed. It focuses attention on the exact position said to be redundant, the comparison between old and new roles, the fairness of any selection exercise and whether redeployment was genuinely pursued.

Employees facing a similar process should preserve the old and proposed job descriptions, selection criteria and scores, consultation feedback, vacancy information and any evidence showing that substantially the same work continues after the restructure. See also Redundancy and Unjustified redundancy and unfair 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.