This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Limited [2021] NZERA 304. The key point: even if a redundancy is genuine, an employer can still lose if there is little or no consultation, relevant information is not shared, selection criteria are not discussed, and redeployment is not properly explored.
Quick facts
- Citation: Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Limited [2021] NZERA 304
- ERA location: Auckland
- Member: Nicola Craig
- Determination date: 19 July 2021
- Investigation meeting dates: 15 March 2021 and 19 April 2021
- Role: Administration assistant
- Employment start: Late August 2019
- Dismissal basis claimed by employer: Redundancy
- Applicant representative: Lawrence Anderson (advocate)
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.
Why this case matters
- A "genuine redundancy" does not excuse a poor or rushed process.
- Consultation must be real. Employees must be told their job may be at risk and be given a chance to comment and suggest alternatives.
- If selection criteria include performance or "least experience", that needs to be put to the employee and handled fairly.
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
The employer was ordered to pay (within 21 days)
- $17,000.00 compensation (without deduction) for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings (Employment Relations Act 2000, s 123(1)(c)(i))
- 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.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
![Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)