ClickCease

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

In Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304, the ERA held the redundancy dismissal was unjustified due to a lack of consultation, lack of relevant information, and failure to properly explore alternatives and redeployment. The Authority awarded $17,000 compensation and reserved costs.


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)
Direct link to the full ERA determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2021/2021-NZERA-304.pdf

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.
Practical takeaway for employers: If you are contemplating redundancy, document the business rationale, consult before a final decision, share relevant information, discuss selection criteria, and genuinely explore redeployment and alternatives.

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.

Open [2021] NZERA 304 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with a redundancy or ERA matter? If you are dealing with a redundancy proposal, consultation obligations, or an ERA claim, we can assist with strategy, settlement, and representation.
Read more
Redundancy and restructuring Employment Relations Authority (ERA) Personal grievances (PG)
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Redundancy
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Browse topics