CAMERON ROWETH v MT OUTDOORS LIMITED [2026] NZERA 50

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) redundancy decision. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

This determination concerns the redundancy dismissal of a fixed-term employee and whether the dismissal was justified under s 103A. ([2026] NZERA 50)

Mr Roweth was employed as a Seasonal Retail/Ski Boot Fitting Assistant on a fixed-term agreement from 5 June 2024 to 20 October 2024. (see [4])

On 28 June 2024 he was called to a meeting and told the business could no longer sustain his employment. The employer terminated the fixed-term agreement that day and paid two weeks' notice in lieu. (see [5], [16], [18])

The employee raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal on 8 August 2024. (see [6])

The employer accepted its process was not justified, but argued the substantive redundancy decision was justified because expected winter work did not eventuate, revenue fell and costs increased, and the business needed to cut employment costs by disestablishing one of four fixed-term roles. (see [7], [12]-[15])

The Authority accepted the business decision to disestablish one of the four fixed-term roles was genuine and supported by confidential commercial/financial evidence. (see [1]-[3], [22])

However, the Authority found the employer had already decided to dismiss Mr Roweth before the 28 June meeting, meaning there was no effective consultation about either the disestablishment decision or (crucially) the selection of Mr Roweth for redundancy. (see [15], [21])

The Authority noted there were factors in the selection decision that should have been consulted over, and that consultation might have produced an alternative outcome (selection of another employee or an alternative to redundancy for Mr Roweth). (see [23]-[26])

Because the selection decision was made without proper and effective consultation, the Authority could not conclude the selection was genuine or substantively justified, and held the dismissal was unjustified. (see [24], [27])

What the Authority had to decide

The central issue was whether the redundancy dismissal was justified under s 103A, applying redundancy consultation principles. In redundancy cases the employer typically must consult meaningfully before deciding both the disestablishment and the selection decision.

• In redundancy cases, the s 103A test is applied through the consultation principles discussed by the Court of Appeal in Grace Team Accounting v Brake.
• In practical terms, the employer must provide relevant information, give a real opportunity to respond, and genuinely consider that feedback before deciding both: (1) to disestablish a role, and (2) who will be selected (if selection is required). (see [19]-[21])

Confidential commercial evidence

The Authority accepted the business reasons for disestablishing one fixed-term role and made non-publication orders to protect sensitive commercial and financial material.

• This determination also includes non-publication orders protecting the employer's sensitive commercial and financial evidence (and prohibits publication of that information). (see [1]-[3])

Outcome and remedies

The Authority held the employee was unjustifiably dismissed because the selection decision was not justified due to the lack of consultation. The remedies (and costs directions) were:

• Compensation (hurt and humiliation): The Authority assessed the impact as moderate but toward the lower end compared with other cases, and awarded $15,000. (see [29]-[32])
• Lost remuneration: Although the employee was unemployed for over six months, the Authority found he failed to mitigate from around the second week of August 2024 when he decided to leave New Zealand to travel, meaning the dismissal no longer caused the loss after that point. Lost remuneration was therefore limited to six weeks at 36 hours per week, $25.00 per hour, totaling $5,400 (subject to normal deductions). (see [33]-[39])
• Notice: The agreement provided four weeks' notice for redundancy. The employer had paid only two weeks, so the Authority ordered an additional two weeks' notice pay of $1,800. (see [40], [44])
• Contribution: No reduction for contribution was applied. (see [41]-[42])
• Costs: Costs were reserved. If not resolved, the employee could file a costs memorandum within 28 days, with a 14-day reply period, and costs would usually be assessed on the Authority's daily tariff basis. (see [45]-[47])

Why this case matters

• Even where the business case for redundancy is genuine, the selection decision can still be unjustified if there is no meaningful consultation.
• Predetermination is a red flag: deciding who will go before you consult can make the process unlawful.
• Mitigation matters in reimbursement: if an employee is not available for work (for reasons unrelated to the dismissal), reimbursement can be reduced to the period where the loss is still caused by the dismissal.
• Check redundancy notice clauses carefully: the contractual notice entitlement can create a separate payment obligation.

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.