HILL v TAMAKI LABOUR HIRE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 100

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 (partly successful).

In summary, Tamaki further denies any bullying occurred and says the suspension during the redundancy consultation period was justifiable in all the circumstances. After that, Commencement of restructuring process [18] By letter dated 13 March 2023, Ms Kidd requested Ms Hill attend a meeting on 16 March 2013 to discuss a proposed restructure that may impact on Ms Hill's role. Later, Shortly after the meeting, Ms Hill emailed her team saying there was a proposed company restructure with a proposal to dissolve her role and the Auckland sales team to report to Ms McGavin. The determination records that By attached letter, Ms Hill was invited to a meeting on 23 March 2023, to discuss the restructuring proposal and give her feedback. The Authority notes that By letter dated 29 March 2023, Ms Kidd emailed Ms Hill outlining the process to date and Tamaki's attempts to schedule a feedback meeting. Ultimately, The letter said feedback could alternatively be given via email, text message, phone call or video call, with a deadline of 12 April 2023. In the end, Personal grievance raised [37] On Sunday 2 April 2023, by email to Ms McGavin and Ms Kidd with the subject line (quoted wording omitted), Ms Hill raised concerns that she was being targeted for constructive dismissal and bullying.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are HILL (employee) and TAMAKI LABOUR HIRE LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• Tamaki further denies any bullying occurred and says the suspension during the redundancy consultation period was justifiable in all the circumstances.
• Commencement of restructuring process [18] By letter dated 13 March 2023, Ms Kidd requested Ms Hill attend a meeting on 16 March 2013 to discuss a proposed restructure that may impact on Ms Hill's role.
• Shortly after the meeting, Ms Hill emailed her team saying there was a proposed company restructure with a proposal to dissolve her role and the Auckland sales team to report to Ms McGavin.
• By attached letter, Ms Hill was invited to a meeting on 23 March 2023, to discuss the restructuring proposal and give her feedback.
• By letter dated 29 March 2023, Ms Kidd emailed Ms Hill outlining the process to date and Tamaki's attempts to schedule a feedback meeting.
• The letter said feedback could alternatively be given via email, text message, phone call or video call, with a deadline of 12 April 2023.
• Personal grievance raised [37] On Sunday 2 April 2023, by email to Ms McGavin and Ms Kidd with the subject line (quoted wording omitted), Ms Hill raised concerns that she was being targeted for constructive dismissal and bullying.
• She said since the 3 March 2023 meeting, she felt consistently bullied and dismissed by senior management, with the restructure proposal coming 10 days after the meeting.
• On 14 April 2023, WorkSafe wrote to Tamaki explaining that it had received an allegation of workplace bullying and harassment but that it would not be taking any further action.
• The letter stated it appeared as a result of the 3 March 2023 meeting, Ms Hill was being made redundant and was suspended.
• In relation to feedback on the restructure proposal, the letter stated Ms Hill had already provided feedback by way of questions by email of 20 March 2023.
• The letter said Tamaki had considered Ms Hill's further comments in relation to the proposed restructure and redundancy.

Decision markers

• Ms Hill has established she had a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
• Remedies [80] Ms Hill has established personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage in relation to the suspension.
• Compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act [82] The Authority was satisfied Ms Hill has experienced significant harm under each of the heads of s123(1)(c)(i) of the Act as a result of the both the unjustified dismissal and suspension.
• Outcome [84] Ms Hill has established personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and disadvantage in relation to her suspension.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $23,000
• Lost wages: One weeks' pay
• 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

• Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• 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.