PINK v POWERNET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 374

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, Terms of employment relating to redundancy [18] Ms Pink's IEA included the following agreement about what would happen in a redundancy proposal situation. After that, I include only the relevant parts: 15.1 Redundancy is defined as a situation where your employment with us is terminated by us, the termination being attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that the position filled by you is or will become superfluous to our needs. Later, Despite some difference in what was is recalled or interpreted, The Authority found it likely Mr Stevens told Ms Pink her role was being proposed for disestablishment after Ms Pink asked about this, that Ms Pink was very upset, and that a rescheduling of Mr Steven's proposed 1.00 pm meeting was moved to the next day. The determination records that According to the email he sent to Ms Pink after the meeting that day, Ms Pink was provided with documentation giving the decision disestablishing her role which included a summary of feedback and PowerNet's responses, her redundancy letter and a list of PowerNet vacancies. The Authority notes that In terms of the concerns about succession in the proposal it was still considered that having several OHNs available through an external service meant there was continued coverage compared to the situation where a single employed part time OHN was on leave or resigned or retired. i. Ultimately, Consultation with Ms Pink [41] While The Authority found that Ms Pink gave detailed feedback in writing and then in person on 15 November 2023, this was to PowerNet's proposal as it stood. In the end, As was the case in Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken13 the Employment Court found that the lack of financial information and the employer's responses that it was irrelevant was fatal to the employer showing it had sufficiently consulted about proposing to make the employee's role redundant.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are PINK (employee) and POWERNET LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 12 March 2025.
• Authority member: Antoinette Baker.

Key events described

• Terms of employment relating to redundancy [18] Ms Pink's IEA included the following agreement about what would happen in a redundancy proposal situation.
• I include only the relevant parts: 15.1 Redundancy is defined as a situation where your employment with us is terminated by us, the termination being attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that the position filled by you is or will become superfluous to our needs.
• Despite some difference in what was is recalled or interpreted, The Authority found it likely Mr Stevens told Ms Pink her role was being proposed for disestablishment after Ms Pink asked about this, that Ms Pink was very upset, and that a rescheduling of Mr Steven's proposed 1.00 pm meeting was moved to the next day.
• According to the email he sent to Ms Pink after the meeting that day, Ms Pink was provided with documentation giving the decision disestablishing her role which included a summary of feedback and PowerNet's responses, her redundancy letter and a list of PowerNet vacancies.
• In terms of the concerns about succession in the proposal it was still considered that having several OHNs available through an external service meant there was continued coverage compared to the situation where a single employed part time OHN was on leave or resigned or retired. i.
• Consultation with Ms Pink [41] While The Authority found that Ms Pink gave detailed feedback in writing and then in person on 15 November 2023, this was to PowerNet's proposal as it stood.
• As was the case in Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken13 the Employment Court found that the lack of financial information and the employer's responses that it was irrelevant was fatal to the employer showing it had sufficiently consulted about proposing to make the employee's role redundant.
• Based on the above, The Authority found Ms Pink was unfairly not given an opportunity to consider the comparative costings for outsourcing the service she was employed to perform for PowerNet, this closely then links to her having inadequate time to have given feedback on the proposal .
• The Authority found PowerNet's actions also breached its duty of good faith to have consulted on matters relating to a proposal to end her employment under the above referenced s4(1A) of the Act. 13 Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Limited [2017] NZEmpC 71, Judge Inglis.
• Ms Pink says that that she was disadvantaged because the wider workforce was also not given sufficient time to feedback on the proposal given timings with their shift work and that many employees were unlikely to have seen the email invitation to feedback when first communicated.
• While Ms Pink's feedback at the 15 November 2023 meeting records her concern that the wider workforce needed more details to understand that it was her being proposed for redundancy.
• There being a finding of a lack of genuine reason to disestablish Ms Pink's role, it follows that because there was no disciplinary process The Authority found that Ms Pink was unjustifiably dismissed.

Decision markers

• Consultation with Ms Pink [41] While The Authority found that Ms Pink gave detailed feedback in writing and then in person on 15 November 2023, this was to PowerNet's proposal as it stood.
• Standing back from the above, The Authority found that PowerNet through Mr Stevens did not likely consider the whole role that Ms Pink was disestablished from.
• No costings [73] While Mr Steven's evidence and submissions invite me to accept that the proposal to disestablish Ms Pink's role was not about costs but flexibility to have occupational health services on demand, The Authority found this inconsistent with the same two things I have already outlined above.
• The Authority found the above further supports an overall finding that the proposal to disestablish Ms Pink's role was not genuine.
• There being a finding of a lack of genuine reason to disestablish Ms Pink's role, it follows that because there was no disciplinary process The Authority found that Ms Pink was unjustifiably dismissed.
• The Authority found that appropriate global compensation for the two interlinked grievances found should be $25,000.00.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $25,000.00
• Costs: Costs awarded.

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.