STILLMAN v BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 239

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

A penalty determination was made.

In summary, Ms Stillman says her dismissal on the basis of redundancy was not genuine, in that it lacked substantive justification and was procedurally deficient. After that, This determination resolves the issue of whether Ms Stillman was unjustifiably dismissed on the basis of a redundancy and should be paid compensation and lost earnings. Later, On 15 December Ms Evans sent an email to the (quoted wording omitted) inviting them to a meeting the following week on 22 December 2023. The determination records that In the context of a dismissal for redundancy, it is settled law that if an employer can show the redundancy was genuine and enacted in a procedurally fair manner, then the s 103A test may well be satisfied.1 The Authority should first determine if the redundancy was genuine. The Authority notes that Ms Stillman says Brother's decision to dismiss her was unjustifiable because there was no consultation on the proposal to close the caf. Ultimately, While she does not strongly argue against the caf closing on the basis of its financial situation, she says the lack of consultation undermines the genuineness of the reasons given, and consequently her dismissal was unjustifiable. In the end, I turn to consider whether the redundancy was enacted in a procedurally fair manner including whether Ms Stillman was given reasonable notice and the consultation requirements have been met.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are STILLMAN (employee) and BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 13 February 2025.
• Authority member: Natasha Szeto.

Key events described

• Ms Stillman says her dismissal on the basis of redundancy was not genuine, in that it lacked substantive justification and was procedurally deficient.
• This determination resolves the issue of whether Ms Stillman was unjustifiably dismissed on the basis of a redundancy and should be paid compensation and lost earnings.
• On 15 December Ms Evans sent an email to the (quoted wording omitted) inviting them to a meeting the following week on 22 December 2023.
• In the context of a dismissal for redundancy, it is settled law that if an employer can show the redundancy was genuine and enacted in a procedurally fair manner, then the s 103A test may well be satisfied.1 The Authority should first determine if the redundancy was genuine.
• Ms Stillman says Brother's decision to dismiss her was unjustifiable because there was no consultation on the proposal to close the caf.
• While she does not strongly argue against the caf closing on the basis of its financial situation, she says the lack of consultation undermines the genuineness of the reasons given, and consequently her dismissal was unjustifiable.
• I turn to consider whether the redundancy was enacted in a procedurally fair manner including whether Ms Stillman was given reasonable notice and the consultation requirements have been met.
• Secondly, based on Ms Evans' evidence, Brother was not contemplating or proposing closure of the caf on 22 December 2023 and therefore the purpose of the meeting could not have been to genuinely consult about the caf closing.
• Brother cannot have genuinely consulted on 22 December 2023 about a proposal to close that was not within contemplation until late January 2024.
• Based on the evidence before the Authority, The Authority concluded that Brother's consideration of closing the caf took place between 23 January and 26 January 2023, and the decision to close the business was made at the family meeting on 27 January 2023.
• Looking objectively at the process Brother followed, The Authority concluded Ms Stillman's redundancy was not procedurally fair.
• The decision to close the caf and make all staff including Ms Stillman redundant was made without consultation.

Decision markers

• Based on the information before the Authority, The Authority found Brother had genuine commercial and personal reasons to close the caf.
• Based on the evidence before the Authority, The Authority concluded that Brother's consideration of closing the caf took place between 23 January and 26 January 2023, and the decision to close the business was made at the family meeting on 27 January 2023.
• Looking objectively at the process Brother followed, The Authority concluded Ms Stillman's redundancy was not procedurally fair.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $20,000
• Costs: Costs reserved.

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.