BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Ms Bell alleges that the redundancy was not genuine, and that the process followed was procedurally and substantively flawed, resulting in both unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, and a breach of good faith, under the Employment Relations Act 2000. After that, Ms Bell seeks compensation, loss of remuneration, and penalties.1 [3] Hubergroup denies the allegations and asserts that the dismissal was the result of a genuine redundancy, following a fair and reasonable process. Later, Ms Bell receives pay rise in April 2023 [11] In or around 18 April 2023, Ms Bell decided to resign from Hubergroup after an incident in which she claims she was verbally abused by Mr Achilles. The determination records that As a follow-up to their meeting, Ms Bell set out a lengthy email dated 5 October 2023 which included an explanation on how the Wellington branch operated and her concerns of delays for customers (quoted wording omitted). The Authority notes that If proposal goes ahead changes will be shared with local teams and the wider business Date tbc if proposal goes ahead last day of work [19] The letter included advice to obtain legal advice, and to bring a support person to any future meetings unless they were an employee, client or competitor. Ultimately, At the investigation meeting, Ms Bell stated she did not respond because by the time Mr Toal finally responded to her (despite having scheduled a 1pm phone call about the proposal) it was later in the day and by then, she was legally represented and felt it was best to engage through her lawyers from there on. In the end, Ms Bell says that she had forwarded the emails to herself as she did not want to compile her response from her work computer for privacy reasons and had ensured she deleted emails she forwarded to herself once she had written her response to Hubergroup in relation to the proposed redundancy.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are BELL (employee) and HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 25-26 June 2025 (2 days).
• Authority member: Davinnia Tan.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Ms Bell alleges that the redundancy was not genuine, and that the process followed was procedurally and substantively flawed, resulting in both unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, and a breach of good faith, under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
• Ms Bell seeks compensation, loss of remuneration, and penalties.1 [3] Hubergroup denies the allegations and asserts that the dismissal was the result of a genuine redundancy, following a fair and reasonable process.
• Ms Bell receives pay rise in April 2023 [11] In or around 18 April 2023, Ms Bell decided to resign from Hubergroup after an incident in which she claims she was verbally abused by Mr Achilles.
• As a follow-up to their meeting, Ms Bell set out a lengthy email dated 5 October 2023 which included an explanation on how the Wellington branch operated and her concerns of delays for customers (quoted wording omitted).
• If proposal goes ahead changes will be shared with local teams and the wider business Date tbc if proposal goes ahead last day of work [19] The letter included advice to obtain legal advice, and to bring a support person to any future meetings unless they were an employee, client or competitor.
• At the investigation meeting, Ms Bell stated she did not respond because by the time Mr Toal finally responded to her (despite having scheduled a 1pm phone call about the proposal) it was later in the day and by then, she was legally represented and felt it was best to engage through her lawyers from there on.
• Ms Bell says that she had forwarded the emails to herself as she did not want to compile her response from her work computer for privacy reasons and had ensured she deleted emails she forwarded to herself once she had written her response to Hubergroup in relation to the proposed redundancy.
• Ms Bell raised a personal grievance with Hubergroup on 26 February 2024 for an unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
• Even if a redundancy is genuine, it may be procedurally so flawed that dismissal is unjustifiable.
• Analysis - unjustified dismissal [70] Having reviewed the evidence, The Authority found Ms Bell's dismissal by redundancy was both substantively and procedurally unjustified.
• However, given that the proposal was (quoted wording omitted), it remained unclear how and why Mr Achilles' hours and job title was amended only two months earlier outside the redundancy process; and Ms Bell's role was subject to disestablishment.
• The Authority found that Hubergroup had given little thought with regards to process when it delivered the proposal of 28 November 2023 to Ms Bell and sought feedback by the end of that working week.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• Analysis - unjustified dismissal [70] Having reviewed the evidence, The Authority found Ms Bell's dismissal by redundancy was both substantively and procedurally unjustified.
• Accordingly, The Authority found the decision to disestablish Ms Bell's role substantively unjustified.
• The Authority found that Hubergroup had given little thought with regards to process when it delivered the proposal of 28 November 2023 to Ms Bell and sought feedback by the end of that working week.
• The Authority found that any legal costs associated with proceedings must properly be treated as 'costs' and I reserve determination on any costs issues, as set out below.
• The Authority found its actions of poor consultation and poor preparation of the information and its assessment of the business case, were inadvertent.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost Wages: $18,333.68
• Compensation: $25,000
• Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.