Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Jeanette Go, an estimator employed by Point Limited. Point accepted there were flaws in its redundancy process. The main problems were that it did not disclose the selection criteria used to select Ms Go's role for redundancy, did not interview the other estimators, misunderstood her reduced-hours alternative, and moved too quickly to a prepared termination decision. The ERA accepted that there was a genuine business reason for reducing the estimation team, and found the dismissal decision probably would not have changed if the process had been done properly. Even so, Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed redundancy process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The short point

The employer did not lose because the ERA rejected the commercial basis for the restructure. The ERA accepted there had been a significant reduction in incoming plans for estimation work and accepted that the business had genuine reasons to consider reducing the estimation team. Ms Go herself accepted she was aware that incoming plans had decreased.

The problem was the selection and consultation process. Point used selection criteria but did not tell the estimators what those criteria were. Ms Go was the only estimator interviewed. Her alternative reduced-hours proposal was misunderstood. Redeployment was not meaningfully discussed. The final decision letter had also been prepared and signed before the final meeting.

This meant the redundancy dismissal was unjustified in process, even though the ERA considered the role likely would still have been disestablished if Point had done the process properly. That distinction explains the remedy: compensation was ordered, but lost wages were limited to four weeks rather than the 19 months Ms Go sought.

Background

Ms Go began employment in 2019 with Tamaki Building Supplies Limited as an estimator at the East Tamaki office. During 2019, Martin and Deborah Day acquired that business. They were also directors of Dayle Timber Limited, trading as Dayle ITM, and Point Limited. Following the acquisition, Ms Go's employer became Point Limited.

By 2024, Point and the wider Dayle ITM business were facing reduced work. The evidence was that there had been a significant reduction in incoming plans to be estimated because of the economic climate. A wider restructure had already occurred in 2024, with about 12 employees made redundant across a business employing about 88 people.

The estimation department was not affected by that earlier restructure, but the workload issue remained. The Estimation Manager had already encouraged the team to take time off if they wished. He had reduced his own working days to four days, and another team member had taken three months' voluntary leave.

Ms Go's East Tamaki position

Ms Go was based in East Tamaki. The rest of the estimation team were based in Avondale. Ms Go could not practically work from Avondale because she did not drive and there were no suitable public transport options.

Ms Go said this was not a problem because she was experienced and did not often need guidance. She said she would only consult the Estimation Manager, the Branch Manager, or Mr Aro if there were conflicts on pricing or other matters affecting the estimate.

Point saw this differently. The ERA accepted that Mr Aro and Martin Day considered Ms Go's separation from the rest of the estimation team and her direct manager to be a significant factor for operational efficiency. The ERA found that view was not unreasonable.

The October 2024 restructuring proposal

On 3 October 2024, General Manager Operations Ben Aro emailed the estimation department advising that, because of a significant and ongoing reduction in incoming plans, the business was looking at reviewing the department with a view to restructuring. The email attached a review document showing the number of incoming plans for estimation and building consents issued.

The review also recorded steps already taken to deal with the lighter workload. These included a hybrid estimating and detailing role, an approved leave of absence while workload was light, and encouraging staff to use annual leave.

Ms Go provided written feedback on 7 October 2024. She proposed reduced-hours options as an alternative to making one full-time employee redundant. Her idea was that reduced paid hours across the estimator team could achieve the same overall cost saving as removing one full-time position. She did not mean that staff should use annual leave. Her proposal was that the estimators would work fewer days and be paid for fewer days.

The undisclosed selection criteria

After receiving feedback, Mr Aro met with Martin and Deborah Day on 10 October 2024. The decision was made to continue with consultation on reducing the estimation team by one person. Point assessed the team against five criteria:

• accuracy;
• attitude;
• attendance;
• skill set; and
• cost to the business.

Cost was the main component in the selection process. Ms Go was paid the highest salary below the Estimation Manager. However, Point accepted that none of the estimators were told about the criteria being applied. Mr Aro accepted this was a mistake.

This was a central flaw. If an employer is going to select between employees for redundancy, the affected employees need to know what criteria are being used and have a fair opportunity to respond to the way those criteria may affect them. Without that disclosure, the employee is largely responding in the dark.

The 15 October meeting

On 11 October 2024, Point invited Ms Go to a meeting on 15 October 2024. The letter said one position from the remaining estimating team was proposed to be disestablished and that it was Point's preliminary view that Ms Go's position may be surplus to requirements. The letter also said redeployment or retraining would be considered if the disestablishment was confirmed.

Ms Go said she had only one working day to arrange representation. However, she had not asked for more time. At the meeting, she repeated her cost-saving proposals, including reduced hours across the estimation team as an alternative to redundancy. She also raised that she had skills relevant to detailing work from earlier employment and was willing to be retrained or redeployed.

Mr Aro considered that Ms Go did not understand key detailing concepts, including a buildable truss layout. Ms Go disputed this and said her earlier detailing training had been stopped when she was only three months away from completing it. She accepted she had not been trained on the current software and said terminology, not ability, was the real issue.

The 17 October meeting and prepared decision letter

A further meeting occurred on 17 October 2024. Ms Go again raised her reduced-hours alternative, suggesting rotating shorter weeks across the estimation team, including a three-day week and a four-day week on rotation.

Mr Aro advised her that, if accepted, all estimation team members would suffer financially and would quickly use up their annual leave. Ms Go said this showed he had misunderstood her proposal. She was not suggesting the use of annual leave. She was suggesting a reduction in paid working days across the team.

After that discussion, Mr Aro read from a pre-prepared letter dated 17 October 2024. The letter confirmed the restructure was to proceed and that Ms Go's role would be disestablished. Her employment ended that day.

Redeployment and retraining

Redeployment was another flaw. Mr Aro said redeployment had not been possible because the earlier restructure meant there were no available opportunities. The ERA acknowledged that redeployment was not discussed with Ms Go and found this was a flaw, because a fair and reasonable employer will consider redeployment.

However, this did not lead to a large lost-wages award. The ERA accepted the evidence that detailing work was not suitable in the circumstances and that there were no suitable alternative positions after the earlier restructure. Ms Go had not completed the detailing training from years earlier and did not know the current software.

Genuine business reason accepted

The ERA accepted that the reduction in estimation work was genuine. It also accepted that steps previously taken to deal with the lighter workload had not resolved the problem. Those steps included the Estimation Manager reducing his hours, one person moving to a hybrid role, and another person taking extended leave.

The ERA found the evidence supported that the restructure was based on genuine business rationale and not irrelevant or inappropriate factors. This meant Ms Go's case was not treated as a sham redundancy case. The issue was the flawed process, not the underlying commercial reason.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

Point accepted that its process was flawed because Ms Go and the other estimators were not told the selection criteria. Apart from Ms Go, no other member of the estimation team was interviewed. Point also accepted that it should have taken more time to consider Ms Go's reduced working week proposal.

The ERA found the process, especially as it concerned Ms Go, was flawed. The main defects were the non-disclosure of selection criteria, the consultation shortcomings, the failure to properly discuss redeployment, and the haste shown by the pre-prepared 17 October letter.

Ms Go was therefore entitled to compensation for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage.

Compensation

Ms Go gave evidence, supported by her sister Joy Yang, that the loss of her employment significantly affected her. She suffered ongoing stress, had difficulty sleeping, withdrew from social events, and was prescribed medication. Her financial position was also affected because she had to rely on savings, which exacerbated her stress.

The ERA noted that the Authority process itself appeared to have compounded the stress, and that Ms Go saw a doctor 18 months after her employment ended. The ERA considered that this indicated the dismissal alone was not the sole reason for her stress.

Taking all circumstances into account, the ERA awarded $18,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Lost wages were limited to four weeks

Ms Go sought 19 months' lost wages. The ERA did not award that. Because the redundancy situation itself was genuine, the Authority considered lost wages were not usually awarded in the same way they may be after a disciplinary dismissal.

The ERA found that if Point had carried out the process properly, the decision may have been delayed, but it probably would not have changed the decision to disestablish Ms Go's role. A modest lost-wages award was therefore made to reflect the extra period her employment may have remained on foot if consultation had been done properly.

Lost wages were calculated as four weeks' salary: $75,000 per annum divided by 52 weeks, multiplied by four. That produced an award of $5,769.23 gross.

Penalties declined

Ms Go sought penalties. The ERA declined to impose them. Point had accepted early that it did not conduct a fair process and accepted that the determination would focus on compensation and lost wages.

The ERA noted that penalties are punitive rather than compensatory. In the circumstances, because Point had acknowledged the shortcomings in its restructure process and Ms Go had been compensated for the loss, the Authority did not consider a penalty appropriate.

Why this case matters

This determination is a good example of the distinction between a genuine redundancy and a justified dismissal. An employer may have a real downturn, a genuine need to reduce staff numbers, and a commercially sensible reason for restructuring. That is only part of the analysis. The employer still needs to run a fair process.

Selection criteria are particularly important. If an employer is choosing between employees, the criteria cannot be kept hidden and then applied behind the scenes. Employees need to understand the basis on which they may be selected so they can correct errors, challenge assumptions, and provide relevant information.

The case also shows that remedies in redundancy cases often turn on counterfactual causation. Where the Authority considers the role would likely still have been disestablished, lost wages may be limited to the extra time a fair process would have taken. That is why Ms Go received four weeks' lost wages, not the 19 months she sought.

Practical takeaways

• Disclose selection criteria: employees must know the criteria used to select them for redundancy and have a chance to comment on them.
• Interview or consult consistently: interviewing only the person selected for redundancy can create fairness problems if other employees are being compared.
• Do not pre-write the outcome too early: a prepared and signed termination letter before the final consultation meeting can support an argument that the process was not genuinely open.
• Understand alternatives before rejecting them: if an employee proposes reduced hours, shared hours, redeployment, or retraining, the employer needs to understand the proposal before dismissing it.
• Redeployment must be considered: even if there are no suitable roles, the employer should still properly consider and discuss redeployment.
• Genuine business reasons are not enough: a redundancy can be commercially justified but still procedurally unjustified.
• Lost wages may be modest: if the Authority finds the same outcome was likely after a fair process, lost wages may be limited to the delay a proper process would have caused.
• Penalties are not automatic: an acknowledged flawed process may still lead to compensation, but not necessarily penalties.

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.