KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806 - Redundancy consultation was a "charade", unjustified dismissal, $47,692.30 awarded

What was in dispute

• Was the redundancy decision genuine and based on business requirements?
• Was the consultation process fair, open-minded, and supported by sufficient information?
• Were alternatives to redundancy (especially redeployment) properly discussed and considered?
• Were there separate disadvantage / good faith issues in how the proposal was managed?
• Were there pre-employment misrepresentations about earnings (the "200k role" allegation)?

1) Predetermination language (especially on redeployment)

The Authority found language used at the initial meeting and in the proposal communications signaled decisions had effectively already been made, including statements indicating ZIB had assessed alternatives and "not identified any roles" aligning to KMW's skills and business needs. This supported a finding the process lacked open-minded, genuine consultation.

2) Insufficient information to allow meaningful feedback

The initial redundancy proposal relied on broad statements about "business needs", "market dynamics" and "operational efficiency", and said the marketing role would be absorbed into an Australian production team to streamline operations and improve cross-functional collaboration.

The Authority held this was not enough. The core problem was the missing "why": what specific inefficiencies existed, why the role (and only this role) was selected, what the decision-making path was, and what information supported the asserted rationale. Without that detail, consultation could not be meaningful.

3) "Additional information" did not fix the deficiency

After challenge from KMW, ZIB provided a further letter with additional rationale (communication issues, time zone issues, productivity, removing "double handling") and a table mapping 12 task duties to Australian roles said to absorb them.

The Authority still found the explanation was outcome-focused and did not provide the detail required for genuine consultation on the underlying business rationale. The evidence at investigation did not bring sufficient clarity either.

4) Redeployment was not genuinely consulted on

The Authority held there was no real opportunity for redeployment. Even if disestablishment of the role was justified, the process failed because KMW was not meaningfully consulted about what other roles were available and how they could be redeployed.

The Authority accepted KMW's background (including sales experience) meant redeployment options should have been explored, including training or development where needed. Instead, ZIB formed its own view about skills and suitability without consultation.