KNOX v RECRUIT IT GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 4

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.

In summary, Mr Knox was asked to provide feedback by 1pm on 29 September 2023 and was provided the proposal document after the meeting at approximately 11:45AM. After that, Candidate Consultant x 1 [5] The letter stated that RIT was sitting just under $400,000.00 under budget for the 2023-2024 financial year and that no final decision had been made. Later, Mr Leeming followed up with a phone call to Mr Knox, advising that there had been an error in his email and that the actual loss to the company was $200,000.00. The determination records that Because of that, it is with great sadness that your employment will be terminated via redundancy. The Authority notes that During the investigation meeting, Mr Leeming agreed to provide the Authority and Mr Knox the Board Minutes from June to September, and documents that he had given to the Board (as referred to in his evidence). Ultimately, Mr Knox was given three days, until 1pm on 29 September 2023, to provide feedback on the proposal to disestablish his role as Consultant and another role on the basis that the business had sustained a $200K loss; d. In the end, Analysis [38] Having reviewed the evidence, The Authority found that Mr Knox's dismissal by redundancy was not only substantively unjustified, but also procedurally unjustified.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are KNOX (employee) and RECRUIT IT GROUP LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 13 November 2024.
• Authority member: Davinnia Tan.

Key events described

• Mr Knox was asked to provide feedback by 1pm on 29 September 2023 and was provided the proposal document after the meeting at approximately 11:45AM.
• Candidate Consultant x 1 [5] The letter stated that RIT was sitting just under $400,000.00 under budget for the 2023-2024 financial year and that no final decision had been made.
• Mr Leeming followed up with a phone call to Mr Knox, advising that there had been an error in his email and that the actual loss to the company was $200,000.00.
• Because of that, it is with great sadness that your employment will be terminated via redundancy.
• During the investigation meeting, Mr Leeming agreed to provide the Authority and Mr Knox the Board Minutes from June to September, and documents that he had given to the Board (as referred to in his evidence).
• Mr Knox was given three days, until 1pm on 29 September 2023, to provide feedback on the proposal to disestablish his role as Consultant and another role on the basis that the business had sustained a $200K loss; d.
• Analysis [38] Having reviewed the evidence, The Authority found that Mr Knox's dismissal by redundancy was not only substantively unjustified, but also procedurally unjustified.
• When I step back, The Authority found that RIT's reasoning for promoting a staff member into the role of 'Consultant' does not stack up when it decided to make Mr Knox's 'Consultant' role redundant a week prior and advised him he could not be redeployed anywhere within the company.
• It also transpired at the investigation meeting that RIT had a savings figure it hoped to achieve, but this was not communicated to Mr Knox or included in the proposal letter.
• There was also a glaring inconsistency regarding the amount RIT was looking to save; in its dismissal letter RIT referred to $30-50K, yet documents considered by the Board only noted a $10.4K saving by disestablishing Mr Knox's role and another part-time role.
• For reasons above I therefore find that RIT failed in its good faith obligations to genuinely consult Mr Knox under s 4(1A)(c), and that its decision to dismiss Mr Knox for redundancy was unjustified.
• The Authority was satisfied that Mr Knox has suffered humiliation and injury to his feelings as a consequence of RIT's unjustified redundancy.

Decision markers

• Analysis [38] Having reviewed the evidence, The Authority found that Mr Knox's dismissal by redundancy was not only substantively unjustified, but also procedurally unjustified.
• When I step back, The Authority found that RIT's reasoning for promoting a staff member into the role of 'Consultant' does not stack up when it decided to make Mr Knox's 'Consultant' role redundant a week prior and advised him he could not be redeployed anywhere within the company.
• The Authority found this comment unfairly and incorrectly deflects the obligation onto Mr Knox, when the obligation lies with the employer to put in place a proper process which includes proper timeframes for genuine consultation and decision making.
• The Authority was satisfied that Mr Knox has suffered humiliation and injury to his feelings as a consequence of RIT's unjustified redundancy.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $18,000.00

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.
• 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.