Stephanie Martin v Sas Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 226

A report-style summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

• SAS Builders Limited (SAS) commenced a restructure in September 2024, which resulted in the termination of Stephanie Martin's employment. Ms Martin claimed the restructure process that was undertaken by SAS was unfair and that she was unjustifiably dismissed. The Authority's investigation
• For the Authority's investigation written witness statements were lodged from Ms Martin and SAS's director Shaun Spillane. All witnesses answered questions under oath or affirmation from the Authority and the other party or its representative. Written submissions were lodged by both parties.
• As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and submissions received. The issues
• The issues requiring investigation and determination were: (a) Was Ms Martin's dismissal on the grounds of redundancy justified? (b) If SAS's actions were not justified (by dismissing the applicant), what remedies should be awarded? (c) If any remedies are awarded, should they be reduced (under s 124 of the Act)...
• Mr Spillane started SAS in 2021. By 2023 the company had grown well and Mr Spillane wished to improve its market presence, but felt he did not have the relevant marketing expertise so he decided to hire someone to perform this function.
• Ms Martin commenced employment with SAS as a Marketing Manager/Office Assistant in June 2023. Prior to this Ms Martin had successfully run and sold a business, and while working at SAS she was studying toward a tertiary qualification. She was described by SAS's owner Shaun Spillane as being a leader, highly...
• When Ms Martin worked for SAS, it was a small business with relatively limited office support which meant that in addition to her work as Marketing Manager/Office Assistant, Ms Martin would from time to time undertake whatever kinds of work were required to keep things turning over. This was also true of Mr...
• Mr Spillane said it was apparent to him from early in the working relationship that Ms Martin did not enjoy working on administrative tasks and that she wished to focus on work that would grow the business or otherwise add value, such as sales or working more closely with clients.
• In early 2024 Mr Spillane and Ms Martin had a number of conversations about her considering leaving the business. In April 2024 she tendered her resignation, which triggered a conversation with Mr Spillane regarding what it would take for her to stay. Mr Spillane regarded Ms Martin as a valuable employee that he...
• As part of these discussions Mr Spillane and Ms Martin agreed that her pay would be increased while she undertook the work of her current role and began to learn and develop toward being undertaking a sales-based role in the future which, it was discussed, would have a commission component to its pay. Ms Martin...
• On 7 August 2024 SAS placed an advertisement on TradeMe to recruit for a new Admin support/PA role which would manage Mr Spillane's administrative work including dealing with inquiries, his emails and his calendar. Mr Spillane said the purpose of creating the role was that it would mean he could focus on chargeable...
• As part of this conversation Mr Spillane asked Ms Martin if she was willing to undertake the Admin support/PA work rather than go through with hiring someone new into the role. Mr Spillane said that Ms Martin was adamant that she would not be interested in doing that kind of work. Mr Spillane understood Ms Martin's...

Key findings and reasoning

• An employer is entitled to restructure its operations in order to realise efficiencies and cost savings. In order to do so it must undertake a fair process compliant with s 4 of the Act and have genuine reasons for the change.1
• Accordingly, SAS failed to comply with the good faith and procedural fairness obligations that were required for it to be able to justify Ms Martin's dismissal.
• Given Ms Martin has a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, she is entitled to consideration of remedies. Humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings
• Ms Martin seeks compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act. In assessing whether such an award should be made, the Authority must quantify the harm and loss caused by any humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings arising out of the...
• Ms Martin's evidence warranted an award of $10,000 in distress compensation. 4 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113 Lost wages
• SAS's unjustified actions meant Ms Martin was not redeployed to an alternate role it created in the business, when a proper discharge of its obligations would have meant she would have been. This means that Ms Martin has a valid claim to lost wages despite the restructure itself having genuine commercial reasons...
• Accordingly, the evidence supports the conclusion that an award of six weeks' wages at the rate of pay of the new role appropriately reflects the likely quantum of remuneration actually lost by Ms Martin as a result of SAS's unjustified actions. 5 Section 128 of the Act. 6 Sam's Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang...
• Had Ms Martin been appointed to the new Admin support/PA role, she would have earned wages at the rate and hours applicable to that role. Six weeks' lost remuneration is therefore calculated based on the new wage rate, which equals $4,872.00. Orders are made in that amount pursuant to s 128 of the Act. Contribution
• Accordingly, Ms Martin's remedies should not be reduced for contribution. Costs
• Within 28 days of the date of this determination, SAS Builders Limited is ordered to pay Stephanie Martin: (i) $10,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings; (ii) $4,872.00 (gross) under s 128 of the Act as lost wages; and (iii) $71.55 as...
• It is now well established that the relationship between ss 4 and 103A requires a fair and reasonable employer to behave in a manner consistent with the statutory duty of good faith when undertaking a redundancy process. Section 4(1A)(c) requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will have an...

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost wages / arrears: $4,872.00, $71.55
• Compensation: $10,000.00

Note: amounts are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context (gross/net, tax, contribution, and deadlines).

Practical takeaways

• ERA dismissal cases are assessed using s 103A (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
• Always read the orders section for the authoritative list of payments, deadlines, and compliance steps.

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.