Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182

This is a redundancy case where the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) accepted the employer had genuine commercial reasons to restructure, but still found the dismissal was unjustified because consultation about selection (and how selection was applied) was not done properly. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Duvaux worked for Mega Limited as a senior web developer from 14 June 2023 until 22 November 2024. Mega operated a cloud storage platform with a large technology department (over 180 staff during the period in question). Mr Duvaux worked in a Webclient team focused on the front-end of Mega's web application.

Mega's evidence was that commercial performance had deteriorated, including a substantial decline in revenue-per-employee. In August 2024 the board commenced a review across the business to identify cost savings and operational efficiencies. That review led to a restructure proposal affecting the technology department.

The restructure process and consultation timeline

• 4 November 2024: the Chief Technology Officer met with affected employees, provided the restructure proposal, and circulated it by email.
• 11 November 2024: Mr Duvaux provided written feedback.
• 13 November 2024: original feedback deadline (later extended).
• 18 November 2024: extended deadline; Mr Duvaux met with the CTO to discuss the proposal; Mega then communicated its decisions and responses to feedback later that day.
• 19 November 2024: Mega confirmed in writing that Mr Duvaux's position would be disestablished and employment would end by redundancy.
• 22 November 2024: the employment ended. Mega paid contractual notice in lieu, statutory/contractual entitlements, and a discretionary additional payment ($5,055.60).
• 30 January 2025: Mr Duvaux raised a Personal Grievance (PG) alleging unjustified dismissal and seeking remedies.

Mega decided to disestablish 22 roles in the technology department. Mr Duvaux's role was among those disestablished. The critical legal question was not whether Mega could restructure. It was whether the consultation (including selection) met the good faith and fairness requirements in redundancy law.

What the case turned on: selection criteria and meaningful consultation

The ERA's key focus was the way Mega approached selection. The proposal referred to selection criteria, quantified values and weightings. But the Authority found Mega had already applied the selection criteria before the proposal was issued and used that pre-application to determine which roles were likely to be disestablished.

That created a structural problem for consultation: if selection has effectively occurred before employees receive the proposal, the consultation about selection can become hollow. The Authority also found Mega did not provide Mr Duvaux with the actual values (scores) applied to his role, which meant he could not meaningfully engage with how the criteria were applied in his case.

Mr Duvaux provided feedback about the selection criteria and its application, but the Authority found Mega did not specifically address his feedback on the way the criteria applied to his position. Taken together, the Authority treated this as a material consultation defect, not a minor technicality.

Unjustified dismissal in a redundancy context

Redundancy is not automatically unjustified just because process is imperfect. The law draws a line between minor defects and defects that cause unfairness. Here, the Authority found the defect was not minor and resulted in unfair treatment.

Mega submitted that even if the process around selection criteria was improved (for example, by running a fully contestable selection process), the outcome would likely have been the same based on Mr Duvaux's overall scoring. The Authority did not accept that inevitability argument. It found the process defect mattered because, with proper consultation and disclosure of scores, it was possible Mr Duvaux would have had a fair opportunity to influence the scoring outcome and might not have been dismissed.

The Authority also addressed the argument sometimes raised in redundancy cases: that a procedural defect should only produce an unjustified disadvantage finding, not unjustified dismissal. The Authority relied on Employment Court authority confirming that non-minor procedural defects that cause unfairness can support an unjustified dismissal finding in a redundancy setting.

Redeployment

Redeployment was explored. The Authority accepted Mega's evidence that only one potentially available redeployment role existed. It also accepted Mr Duvaux's evidence that the role was not suitable for him. Redeployment was not the deciding factor in the unjustified dismissal outcome.

Remedies

Compensation

The Authority assessed compensation as a non-punitive remedy focused on emotional harm. It accepted the dismissal caused significant stress and financial pressure (including the timing close to Christmas and related family circumstances). At the same time, it noted Mega did consult on the proposal generally and the employment did not end abruptly without any engagement. Taking the impact evidence and the nature of the breach together, the Authority fixed compensation at $8,000.

Reimbursement of lost wages

For lost wages, the Authority applied a key principle in procedurally-driven unjustified dismissal findings: the remedy should reflect the likelihood that employment may still have ended even if a proper process had been followed.

Mr Duvaux sought the equivalent of 10 months' salary, but the Authority limited reimbursement to a three-month period. It accepted Mr Duvaux took reasonable steps to find work after dismissal and was entitled to recover losses for the three-month period following termination. It did not exercise the discretion to award more than three months.

Practical takeaways

• Selection must be consultable: if criteria are applied before consultation and scores are withheld, consultation can be found inadequate.
• Provide scoring detail: if a process uses quantified values/weightings, affected employees will often need their scores to test accuracy and meaningfully respond.
• Unjustified dismissal can still arise in redundancy: material procedural defects that cause unfairness are capable of grounding an unjustified dismissal finding.
• Remedy moderation: where the defect is procedural, reimbursement may be moderated to reflect the chance the job would have ended even with a correct process.

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.