Anna Murgatroyd v Xero (NZ) Limited [2026] NZERA 305

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination is a useful redundancy case for both employees and employers. Anna Murgatroyd argued that Xero (NZ) Limited had predetermined her redundancy, relying heavily on a Miro board that appeared to show her role as "proposed to disestablish" months before the restructure was formally announced. The ERA rejected the argument that the redundancy was a sham. However, the ERA still found the dismissal procedurally unjustified because of the selection process, including the role of Ms Murgatroyd's manager on the selection panel and the failure to give Ms Murgatroyd relevant performance-related comments so she could respond before the selection decision was made. Xero was ordered to pay two weeks' lost remuneration, the ERA filing fee and $16,000 compensation after a 20 percent reduction for contribution. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Ms Murgatroyd worked for Xero as an Education Specialist. Xero is a software business providing accounting, bookkeeping and payroll services, primarily for small and medium-sized businesses. In 2024, Ms Murgatroyd was part of Xero's education team, which was involved in a national roadshow across New Zealand.

Ms Murgatroyd later said her manager, Jessica Ruffino, had micromanaged her during the roadshow content-writing stage, assigned her difficult tasks, failed to communicate in a timely way, and excluded her from presenting at an Australian roadshow that involved the rest of her team. Around June or July 2024, Ms Ruffino had also raised concerns with Xero's general manager of education and content delivery, Vikki Bean, about Ms Murgatroyd's performance during the roadshow.

That background became important because the later redundancy selection process involved both Ms Bean and Ms Ruffino. The ERA was not dealing with a simple redundancy where there were no prior interpersonal or performance issues. There was a manager complaint in one direction, performance criticism in the other direction, and a selection process that later had to be assessed under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The complaint about the manager

On 6 September 2024, Ms Murgatroyd contacted Ms Bean on Slack saying she wanted to catch up because there were things involving Ms Ruffino that she did not know how to deal with. Later that day, she shared concerns about how Ms Ruffino had treated her during the roadshow. At that point, Ms Murgatroyd did not know Ms Ruffino had raised performance concerns about her, and Ms Bean did not tell her about those concerns.

On 12 September 2024, Ms Murgatroyd provided further detail using a Miro board timeline. She recorded, among other things, that she was the only person in her team not going to the Australian roadshow and that this left her feeling excluded and ostracised. Ms Bean acknowledged that it must have been tough for Ms Murgatroyd to put those matters down on paper and said she would check in the following week.

The parties later disagreed about what was to happen next. Ms Murgatroyd considered that she had given permission for Ms Bean to arrange an informal meeting with Ms Ruffino. Ms Bean considered that she was still waiting for Ms Murgatroyd's permission. Ms Murgatroyd then had emergency surgery for appendicitis and was away from work until 10 October 2024.

The secondment issue

On 24 October 2024, Ms Ruffino raised a business analyst secondment opportunity with Ms Murgatroyd, saying she thought it would be a good fit. Ms Murgatroyd applied and was interviewed on 1 November 2024, but was unsuccessful.

Ms Murgatroyd argued that the secondment suggestion was connected with her having already been selected for redundancy. The ERA did not accept that. Ms Ruffino gave evidence, after being summonsed by the Authority, that when she raised the secondment opportunity she did not know about the restructure proposal and did not recall Ms Bean being involved in that discussion.

The restructure

On 29 October 2024, Ms Murgatroyd and three other education specialists were told the education team would be restructured. On 30 October 2024, they were shown a slide deck setting out the need for change, the current and proposed structures, the proposed disestablishment of roles, a feedback deadline of 7 November 2024, expressions of interest information, redundancy payment information, next steps and available support.

The proposed structure reduced the number of education specialist roles from four to two. Ms Ruffino's Head of Education - APAC role was also proposed to be disestablished. Ms Murgatroyd said that, in a meeting with Ms Bean on 31 October 2024, she understood there would be room for existing staff because of natural attrition. She did not provide feedback on the restructure proposal.

On 14 November 2024, a selection panel met to assess the existing education specialists and decide who would be made redundant. The panel comprised Ms Bean, Ms Ruffino, Andrew Mackay from People Experience, and Xero's head of education - global digital delivery. On 21 November 2024, Ms Bean told Ms Murgatroyd that she had not been selected for one of the two remaining Education Specialist positions. On 28 November 2024, Ms Murgatroyd was told she had been selected for redundancy.

The Miro board predetermination argument

The most striking feature of the case was the Miro board. During a Miro workshop on 21 November 2024, Ms Murgatroyd found a board that Ms Bean had created on 23 July 2024 and that appeared not to have been changed since 22 August 2024. On that board, Ms Murgatroyd's name appeared in a colour-coded box marked "proposed to disestablish". Another employee, Xiaomei (Shimmie) Totty, had also been named in a similar way.

Ms Murgatroyd's argument was obvious enough: if her name was marked as proposed to be disestablished in July 2024, before the October 2024 restructure announcement, the consultation process was arguably a sham and the outcome was predetermined. Ms Totty gave evidence that she was shocked by what she saw and rejected as ludicrous the suggestion that she had edited the board herself.

The ERA treated the Miro board seriously, but did not accept that it proved predetermination. There was an evidential gap. Ms Bean accepted she had created part of the Miro board around 23 to 24 July 2024, but denied creating the specific "Option" box that showed Ms Murgatroyd's name as proposed to disestablish. The relevant audit logs were no longer available because Xero did not ask Miro for them until May 2025, by which time the earliest logs available were from 8 November 2024.

The ERA said this was wholly unsatisfactory, but without the relevant audit logs from July 2024 it could not conclusively establish that Ms Bean created the Option box. The ERA also found it plausible that a Miro board could have been used for brainstorming and planning, and that Ms Bean's thinking developed over time. Importantly, the final restructure did not substantially match the July Miro board. That difference supported Ms Bean's evidence that she had disengaged from her initial board months earlier.

The redundancy was not found to be a sham

The ERA rejected the argument that Ms Murgatroyd's selection and dismissal by redundancy had been shown to be a sham. The Miro board did not prove predetermination. The secondment suggestion did not prove that Ms Ruffino was trying to move Ms Murgatroyd out because she was already marked for redundancy. The evidence did not establish that the outcome had been decided before consultation.

That did not mean Xero was safe. A redundancy can be genuine, and the final outcome can even be substantively correct, but the dismissal can still be unjustified if the employer gets the process wrong. That is what happened here.

Redeployment was not handled well enough

Ms Murgatroyd argued that Xero failed to properly assist her to find another role and left her to fend for herself. The ERA accepted that, where possible, an employer should offer alternative employment to an employee whose position might be redundant, and that good faith obligations apply when redeployment is being considered.

Xero's restructure proposal included a hyperlink through which staff could submit expressions of interest. The ERA found that was not enough. For an employer of Xero's size, more was reasonably expected to assist Ms Murgatroyd to find alternative employment. The ERA found a paucity of evidence showing that Xero met its s 4 obligations in that respect. This shortcoming was taken into account in the global compensation award.

The disadvantage claim about the complaint did not succeed

Ms Murgatroyd also claimed she was unjustifiably disadvantaged because Ms Bean failed to investigate her complaint about Ms Ruffino. The ERA did not uphold that part of the claim. It accepted that Ms Bean was aware Ms Murgatroyd had concerns about Ms Ruffino's management style, but found Ms Bean did not ignore those concerns.

After Ms Murgatroyd returned from sick leave, Ms Bean followed up and asked how she wanted to proceed with Ms Ruffino. The ERA considered that consistent with Xero's graduated complaint process, which started with informal and low-level resolution where appropriate. The ERA also did not accept the alleged representation that Ms Bean had told Ms Murgatroyd her job was safe. Such a representation was inconsistent with the restructure proposal, which clearly said two of the four education specialist roles were proposed to be disestablished.

The selection panel problem

The critical defect was the selection process. By 29 October 2024, Ms Bean knew Ms Murgatroyd considered her working relationship with Ms Ruffino had deteriorated to the point that she could no longer work directly under her. Ms Murgatroyd had asked for someone to be inserted between her and Ms Ruffino. Ms Murgatroyd was also the only education specialist who had raised a complaint about Ms Ruffino.

At the same time, Ms Ruffino had previously raised performance-related concerns about Ms Murgatroyd arising from the June and July roadshow. Ms Ruffino was then part of the selection panel deciding which education specialists would keep the remaining roles. The ERA accepted it made sense for Ms Ruffino to be on the panel as the line manager, but the process still required procedural safeguards.

The ERA noted that both Ms Bean and Ms Ruffino knew of Ms Murgatroyd's concerns, while the other panel members did not. Mr Mackay accepted, correctly, that it would have been fair and reasonable to give Ms Murgatroyd Ms Ruffino's comments about her performance and an opportunity to respond. That would have helped mitigate unconscious bias, whether real or perceived, in Ms Ruffino's comments about Ms Murgatroyd's strengths and weaknesses.

The ERA found that this extra step would not have significantly delayed the restructure. A further two weeks would have been sufficient. Because Xero did not provide that relevant information and opportunity for comment before the selection decision, the dismissal was procedurally unjustified.

Substantive outcome still justified

This case is not a finding that Ms Murgatroyd should necessarily have got one of the remaining roles. The ERA found the substantive outcome of the selection panel was correct. Ms Murgatroyd acknowledged that the two new roles went to the strongest candidates.

That distinction mattered for remedies. The ERA applied the principle that where a consultation process is flawed but the substantive outcome is justified, lost remuneration should be limited to the time it would have taken to get the process right. Here, the ERA assessed that period as two weeks.

Lost remuneration and no unvested shares

Ms Murgatroyd was awarded two weeks' lost remuneration under s 123(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The ERA said two weeks would have been enough for Xero to complete the consultation process properly and fairly.

Ms Murgatroyd also claimed for unvested shares. That did not succeed. The ERA found there was no viable claim for payment of unvested shares because the relevant employment agreement term made that a matter of absolute discretion for Xero.

Compensation and contribution

The ERA assessed compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings arising from the procedural unfairness associated with the dismissal. It set a global compensation award of $20,000, including Xero's shortcomings on redeployment.

However, the ERA then reduced that compensation by 20 percent for contribution under s 124. This is one of the more employee-unfriendly parts of the determination. The ERA considered that Ms Murgatroyd had contributed to the procedural deficiency by not engaging with the process and by keeping silent when a reasonable person in her position would have told the other members of the selection panel that Ms Bean and Ms Ruffino knew about her concerns with Ms Ruffino.

The ERA said Ms Murgatroyd could not remain silent, allow the process to run its course, and then complain about the outcome afterwards. That reduced the $20,000 compensation award to $16,000. There was no equivalent reduction to the two weeks' lost remuneration, because the ERA found the lost remuneration related to Xero's process and was not Ms Murgatroyd's fault.

Why this case matters

The case is useful because it separates three concepts that often get blurred in redundancy disputes. First, the business restructure may be genuine. Second, the employee may still be dismissed unjustifiably if the selection process is unfair. Third, even where the process is unfair, remedies may be limited if the employer can show the same substantive outcome would probably have occurred after a fair process.

The decision is also a warning about digital planning documents. Miro boards, spreadsheets, draft charts and internal planning documents can become evidence. If they name employees and describe roles as proposed to be disestablished before consultation begins, they can create a serious predetermination argument. Xero escaped a sham finding here, but the Miro board still occupied significant hearing time and created obvious risk.

For employers, the selection panel point is the strongest lesson. If a panel member has made performance criticisms about an affected employee, and that employee has separately raised concerns about that manager, the employer needs to think hard about process safeguards. At a minimum, relevant comments that may affect selection should be disclosed to the employee for response before the decision is made.

For employees, the contribution finding is a warning too. If there is a conflict, complaint, bias concern or process issue, it is usually safer to raise it during the process rather than wait until after the outcome. An employee can still win a grievance, as Ms Murgatroyd did, but compensation can be reduced if the ERA considers the employee kept quiet when they should have spoken up.

Practical takeaways

• Redundancy planning documents matter: early drafts can be evidence if they appear to identify employees before consultation begins.
• Predetermination still requires proof: suspicion is not always enough, especially where audit logs are unavailable and the final structure differs from the earlier planning document.
• Selection panels need safeguards: managers with prior performance concerns or interpersonal conflict may create bias risks that need to be managed.
• Relevant comments should be disclosed: if a manager's views about an employee's performance may affect selection, the employee should usually be given those comments and a chance to respond.
• Redeployment is more than a hyperlink: larger employers may be expected to do more than tell affected employees to lodge expressions of interest.
• A genuine redundancy can still be unjustified: procedural fairness and good faith obligations still matter.
• Remedies may be limited: where the same outcome would probably have occurred after a fair process, lost wages may be limited to the period needed to fix the process.
• Employees should speak up during the process: waiting until after dismissal to raise a process concern can create contribution risk.
• Contribution can reduce compensation: here, $20,000 became $16,000 after a 20 percent deduction.

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.