KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455

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, In April 2024 Ms Ku's employment was terminated for redundancy. After that, She says she was not paid redundancy compensation she was entitled to and was unjustifiably dismissed. Later, In February 2023 the then PBRS managing director writes to Ms Ku confirming that her salary is returning to $55,000 effective from 13 February 2023.1 There is no discussion with her or the marketing manager about any change to the redundancy compensation arrangement at this time. The determination records that A couple of hours later Ms Ku receives an email advising about the company's redundancy proposal. The Authority notes that At lunch time the next day, 21 February 2024, Mr Anirudh emails Ms Ku about the redundancy consultation meeting the previous day, when she had no feedback or alternative suggestions. Ultimately, Late on 23 February PBRS emails Ms Ku an invitation letter to a final restructure meeting scheduled for 27 February - to discuss the process to date, alternatives to the redundancy and opportunities for redeployment within the business. In the end, Announcement of restructure decision on 27 February [39] Unfortunately the email refers to a 12 pm meeting whereas the letter indicates 11 am.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are KU (employee) and EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 29 April 2025 and by audio-visual link.
• Authority member: Nicola Craig.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• In April 2024 Ms Ku's employment was terminated for redundancy.
• She says she was not paid redundancy compensation she was entitled to and was unjustifiably dismissed.
• In February 2023 the then PBRS managing director writes to Ms Ku confirming that her salary is returning to $55,000 effective from 13 February 2023.1 There is no discussion with her or the marketing manager about any change to the redundancy compensation arrangement at this time.
• A couple of hours later Ms Ku receives an email advising about the company's redundancy proposal.
• At lunch time the next day, 21 February 2024, Mr Anirudh emails Ms Ku about the redundancy consultation meeting the previous day, when she had no feedback or alternative suggestions.
• Late on 23 February PBRS emails Ms Ku an invitation letter to a final restructure meeting scheduled for 27 February - to discuss the process to date, alternatives to the redundancy and opportunities for redeployment within the business.
• Announcement of restructure decision on 27 February [39] Unfortunately the email refers to a 12 pm meeting whereas the letter indicates 11 am.
• Later that day PBRS sends Ms Ku an email with an attached decision letter - confirming her position is redundant effective 27 February due to (quoted wording omitted).
• In any event the agreement required notice to be given in writing so verbal notification is insufficient.6 [71] The first version of the 27 February letter sent the same day confirms Ms Ku's position is redundant, (quoted wording omitted) 27 February 2024 and goes on to talk about the new position opening up.
• However, this is not dissimilar to a two-phase process undertaken in some redundancies where the consultation is undertaken on the restructuring proposal, with the scoping out of redeployment or other options such as retraining, starting after that.
• The Authority was satisfied that Ms Ku's redundancy was made for genuine business reasons and saved the company money at a time it was making a loss.
• Grievance established [106] On the information before the Authority, The Authority concluded it was fair and reasonable for PBRS to restructure in the way it did - Ms Ku's redundancy was genuine.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority was satisfied that Ms Ku's redundancy was made for genuine business reasons and saved the company money at a time it was making a loss.
• Grievance established [106] On the information before the Authority, The Authority concluded it was fair and reasonable for PBRS to restructure in the way it did - Ms Ku's redundancy was genuine.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost wages / arrears: $1,057.69
• Compensation: $12,000
• Holiday pay: $634.62

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.