Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 - Unjustified dismissal, redundancy process failures

What happened

Mr Waters started work in late August 2019 in the Auckland office. Less than two months later he was told he was redundant. He challenged the dismissal, saying the redundancy was not handled fairly and that there was no proper consultation.

How he was informed

Mr Waters was unwell and messaged his supervisor on 21 October 2019. Later that day he received an email attaching a letter signed by the Auckland depot manager informing him his role was disestablished and the redundancy was effective immediately. He was paid notice and outstanding entitlements and did not return to work.

Evidence and process problems during the case

The Authority recorded difficulties obtaining evidence from a key decision maker and the absence of a witness statement from the person who signed the termination letter. The investigation meeting proceeded over two dates, including evidence by Zoom from head office.

Key findings (plain English)

• Redundancy was accepted as the reason, but: the Authority was not provided with documentary evidence of the downturn and found the company had hired into a situation where the total admin hours later exceeded what was usually required.
• No meaningful consultation: general comments at regular staff meetings about being "overstaffed" were not enough, and there was no proper discussion with Mr Waters about proposed disestablishment or redundancy.
• No relevant information / no chance to comment: the Authority found Mr Waters was not given access to relevant information and an opportunity to comment before the decision was made.
• Selection criteria not discussed: the employer referred to experience and performance, but there was no discussion with Mr Waters about criteria or why he was selected.
• Redeployment not properly explored: there was insufficient evidence of checking for other roles or properly exploring alternatives.

Orders and remedies

• No lost wages claimed: the determination records that lost wages were not pursued.
• Costs reserved: the Authority set a timetable for memoranda if the parties could not agree on costs.