Conner Powell v OH & N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Conner Powell, who was employed by OH & N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The Authority accepted there was some information supporting a genuine business reason for redundancy: the logging work was at or nearing completion, the business had not secured other logging work, and its need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified. OH & N did not carry out a good-faith restructuring process, did not provide relevant information, did not consult before the decision was made, did not consider alternatives with Mr Powell, and did not give him a genuine opportunity to comment before his employment ended. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Powell was employed by OH & N from November 2022. His work involved general logging work, operating machinery, cutting trees, and general forestry work on a farm owned by the respondents. He had a written individual employment agreement, and the role was full time. Mr Powell said he enjoyed the work and that his general performance was without incident.

OH & N said the work was limited from the start because it related to logging work on the respondents' farm. The company said Mr Powell was kept updated about log numbers and knew that the business was struggling. It also said any available alternative wood processing work on the farm was declined by Mr Powell. Mr Powell challenged the fairness of the way the redundancy was carried out.

The dismissal at Mr Powell's home

On 6 January 2025, Mr Powell received a text message from Mr Mooney asking to meet. The next day, Mr Mooney went to Mr Powell's home and told him that he was closing the company because it was not making money, and that Mr Powell's employment was ending that day.

Mr Powell said there had been no prior discussion about redundancy and no other options were offered. Mr Mooney said he would provide Mr Powell with a reference if he found other work. Mr Powell later heard that OH & N had employed other staff and promoted another worker to the foreman role. OH & N said this was only to finish the last of the logs, which took another three months, and that the other worker's employment also ended.

Genuine business reason accepted

The Authority accepted, on an objective basis, that there was some information supporting a genuine business reason for redundancy. Most of the work Mr Powell had been employed to do was at or nearing completion. The business had not secured other logging work. OH & N's requirement for workers was reducing. The business had also ceased trading, although the company remained registered.

That finding mattered because the case was not decided on the basis that the redundancy was fake. The Authority accepted there was genuine business pressure. The decisive problem was that a genuine redundancy reason does not excuse an employer from its statutory and contractual obligations to consult in good faith before ending employment.

No good-faith restructuring process

Mr Powell's employment agreement referred to redundancy after a good-faith restructuring process. The Authority held that no such process occurred. Even if Mr Powell knew, or ought to have realised, that his employment might be coming to an end, that did not excuse OH & N from its obligations.

The Authority found that OH & N did not adequately consult with Mr Powell about the possibility of redundancy before the decision was made. It did not consider whether there were alternatives to dismissal. It did not provide Mr Powell with information that would allow him to understand and engage meaningfully in consultation, including the option of having a support person or representative involved. It did not obtain his views and consider them with an open mind before deciding whether his position should be made redundant.

The Authority was also clear that Mr Mooney had already made the decision to make Mr Powell's role redundant when he approached him on 7 January 2025. Because Mr Mooney had contacted Mr Powell the previous day, the Authority noted that he could at least have provided some context in advance about the issues that should have been discussed.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The Authority concluded that OH & N had not demonstrated that its actions, and how it acted in the lead-up to Mr Powell's termination, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in the circumstances. Because of those failures, Mr Powell's dismissal was procedurally unjustified.

This was a process case, not a finding that the business had no reason to reduce staff. The Authority accepted there was some genuine business information. But the employer moved straight to the outcome without giving Mr Powell access to relevant information or a real opportunity to comment before the decision was made.

Unpaid wages and the notice-period error

Mr Powell claimed payment for unpaid wages arising from OH & N's incorrect use of annual holiday pay instead of ordinary wages for his notice period. He also claimed 8% holiday pay on the amount due. In closing submissions, OH & N accepted the claimed amount of $2,592 gross, inclusive of holiday pay.

The Authority ordered OH & N to pay Mr Powell $2,592 gross as compensation for final wages lost on the ending of his employment. The practical point is simple: an employer cannot use annual holiday pay as a substitute for contractual notice wages. If notice wages are payable, they must be paid as wages.

Lost wages limited to four weeks

Mr Powell also sought lost wages for the period between the end of his employment and securing new work in February 2025. The Authority accepted he lost income because of the unjustified dismissal. But it also considered what probably would have happened if OH & N had followed a fair process.

The Authority considered that a proper process would not have kept Mr Powell employed long term, given the ending of the work and the pending closure of the business without new work coming in. A further four weeks' lost wages was assessed as reasonable to allow for the process that should have occurred. At $30 per hour for 40 hours per week, this produced an award of $4,800 gross.

Compensation

Mr Powell said the termination had a personal and financial impact. The dismissal was abrupt, confusing, and occurred without warning or discussion. He had bills to pay, was worried about money, and had to get assistance from Work and Income.

The Authority was satisfied that Mr Powell was adversely impacted by the ending of his employment. Taking the relevant factors into account, it fixed compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings at $15,000.

No contribution reduction

The Authority had to consider whether Mr Powell's own actions contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance. It found that none of Mr Powell's actions contributed to OH & N failing to meet its obligation to fairly consult with him before termination. No reduction of remedies was warranted.

Penalties for employment standards breaches

Mr Powell sought penalties for three matters: failure to provide a copy of his individual employment agreement, failure to keep and provide wage and time records, and failure to pay annual holiday pay on termination. The Authority found that the first two matters established breaches of the Employment Relations Act because the agreement and records were requested in writing shortly after employment ended and were not provided immediately.

The Authority treated the final-pay issue as a Wages Protection Act breach rather than a Holidays Act breach. Mr Powell had been paid annual holiday on termination. The breach was that annual holiday pay had been paid instead of contractual notice wages. Where wages are payable under an employment agreement, a failure to make full payment is an unlawful deduction.

The Authority set a penalty of $1,000 for the failure to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and $2,000 for the Wages Protection Act breach. Of the total $3,000 penalty, $2,000 was ordered to be paid directly to Mr Powell and $1,000 to the Crown.

Director recovery against Mr Mooney

Mr Powell also sought a penalty against Mr Mooney personally as a person involved in a breach of minimum employment standards. The Authority could not award that penalty because, under s 142X(2) of the Act, an application for a penalty against a person involved in a breach may be made only by a Labour Inspector.

However, the Authority did consider recovery under s 142Y. It found Mr Mooney was knowingly concerned in the relevant employment standards breach. He was the sole director of OH & N, worked in the business day to day, and had direct knowledge of Mr Powell's terms, conditions, and pay arrangements. Mr Powell was granted leave to recover from Mr Mooney personally, to the extent OH & N could not pay, the unpaid wages amount of $2,592 gross inclusive of 8% holiday pay.

Why this case matters

Powell v OH & N Contracting Limited is a useful reminder that redundancy is not only about whether there was less work. The Authority may accept that the business had genuine reasons to reduce staff, while still finding the dismissal unjustified because the employer failed to consult before the decision was made.

The case also shows why final pay should be treated carefully. The employer's failure to pay contractual notice wages, and its decision to apply annual holiday pay instead, led not only to an arrears order but also to a penalty and limited director-recovery exposure.

Finally, the determination demonstrates the practical importance of employment agreements and wage and time records. Providing records later to the Authority did not cure the breach where the employer failed to provide them immediately when first requested.

Practical takeaways

• Do not skip consultation: even an obvious downturn or ending project still requires a good-faith process before dismissal.
• Provide information: the employee must be given enough information to understand the proposal and comment meaningfully.
• Keep an open mind: a redundancy meeting is not a fair process if the decision has already been made.
• Explore alternatives: even if alternatives seem unlikely, they should be considered with the employee before the decision.
• Do not replace notice pay with holiday pay: contractual notice wages must be paid as wages.
• Provide agreements and records promptly: employment agreements and wage and time records must be provided immediately when properly requested.
• Directors can face limited recovery exposure: where employment standards money is unpaid and the director is knowingly concerned, recovery against the director may be available if the company cannot pay.

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.