KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806

This is a detailed redundancy decision with strong commentary about consultation being a "reality, not a charade". The Authority found serious process defects: predetermination, insufficient information to allow meaningful feedback, and failure to consult properly on redeployment. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background and the redundancy decision

KMW started with ZIB in June 2022 in a full time, permanent role described in the agreement as "Marketing Manager - Australia New Zealand". In early 2024 ZIB decided to disestablish that role and end KMW's employment on paid notice (with no requirement to work during the notice period).

The dispute was not just whether ZIB had business reasons to restructure. The main fight was over process: whether the consultation was genuine and open-minded, whether ZIB provided enough information for meaningful feedback, and whether redeployment options were properly discussed. There was also a separate claim about alleged pre-employment misrepresentations (the "200k role" allegation), which the Authority rejected.

Redundancy law the Authority applied

• Genuineness: a redundancy must be genuine and based on business requirements (the Authority referred to the approach in Grace Team Accounting Ltd v Brake).
• Consultation must be real: consultation is a "reality, not a charade". Employees must be given sufficiently precise information, in time, to respond meaningfully, and the employer must have an open mind and be prepared to change course.
• Good faith and information: s 4(1A) requires provision of relevant information (subject to proper confidentiality grounds) and a genuine opportunity to comment, including on alternatives and redeployment.

Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified

The Authority was critical of the consultation process. In summary, it found the process was not run with a genuinely open mind. Key information supporting the proposal was not provided in a way that allowed meaningful feedback, and the timeline and communications were treated as reinforcing an impression that the outcome was already fixed.

Redeployment was a major weakness. The Authority found ZIB did not genuinely consult with KMW about redeployment opportunities and alternatives, and that the process did not demonstrate a real willingness to consider other outcomes. The Authority held these were not minor defects: they went to the core of what redundancy consultation requires.

Other findings

• Good faith breach: the Authority found ZIB breached good faith obligations (including the information and consultation obligations in s 4(1A)(c)).
• Misrepresentation: claims that ZIB had misrepresented earnings or role expectations before employment were not made out.
• Penalty: despite finding a good faith breach, the Authority declined to impose a penalty (deterrence and the remedies already awarded were factors considered).

Remedies ordered

Practical takeaways

• Consultation has to be genuine: do not start with a fixed outcome, and avoid language that reads like the decision is already made.
• Provide the "why", not just the "what": explain the business drivers and the reasoning path that led to selecting a role for disestablishment.
• Redeployment is not optional: discuss it early and in detail, and keep written records showing genuine consideration of alternatives.
• Timeframes matter: rushed deadlines can undermine the credibility of consultation and increase risk.

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.