Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120

A redundancy case where the Employment Relations Authority accepted the role became surplus for genuine business reasons, but found the consultation and good faith process was not fair. The Authority awarded compensation for unjustified disadvantage and made pointed observations about the employer's advisor-drafted documentation and approach. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page. Content within page vertatim extracts from determination.

Background

Thomas Kenna, worked for Anztec Limited (Anztec) as a senior assembly technician from 2 August 2021 until his employment was terminated on 16 December 2024, following a company restructuring that identified his position as surplus.

Mr Kenna raised a personal grievance by an application to the Authority of 10 January 2025, alleging that he had been unjustifiably dismissed. The application set out alleged procedural deficiencies around information sharing during the restructuring process and suggested the decision to make Mr Kenna redundant was due to an ulterior motive. Compensatory remedies including lost wages and KiwiSaver contributions are sought.

Anztec filed a statement in reply on 31 January 2025, suggesting that Mr Kenna's employment had ended because of a genuine redundancy absent of an ulterior motive, that was effected in a procedurally fair manner.

Mr Kenna, an experienced electronic technician/project manager who had an extensive background in the manufacturing sector, commenced employment with Anztec in August 2021 as a senior assembly technician at their manufacturing premises in Christchurch. The employment was the subject of an individual employment agreement for 40 hours per week and latterly Mr Kenna was paid $38.80 per hour. A job description attached to the employment agreement listed the scope of Mr Kenna's role that included: "Prototype assembly/evaluation".

Anztec is a well-established small business that designs and manufactures change machines, carwash entry payment terminals and site management systems for both the local and international market. At the time of the restructure, Anztec employed seven people including Shane Grose as a developer and Tracey Grose who provided administration management. Mr Kenna reported to Mr Grose, and he assembled wash entry machines and, another technician worked separately on client service requests and change machines.

Mr Kenna says his job was satisfying as he was, for most of the employment period, working solo on assembling products, but he described communication from Shane Grose and his partner Tracey Grose who both own and work in the business, as being very poor. Mr Kenna says no formal meetings took place and he felt not enough information was shared on the direction of the business including an unsettling on/off potential sale of the business in 2022. Mr Kenna says despite his frustration over communication matters, he just got on with his job and recalls being very busy in mid-2024. However, in June 2024 events occurred that Mr Kenna believes later led to him being made redundant in December 2024. June 2024 issue

June 2024 conflict and the advisor-drafted letter

In mid-2024 Anztec engaged an employment advocate, Lynda Mathieson, to help manage a workplace relationship issue. Instead of starting with a clear, particularised discussion, Ms Mathieson drafted a letter (signed by Shane and Tracey Grose) headed "Formal Notification of Concerns Regarding workplace conduct". The Authority later criticised this letter as clumsily worded and unhelpful because it asserted serious concerns but did not identify the specific incidents said to justify them. That kind of vague, loaded communication can undermine trust immediately, and the Authority found it later fed the perception that the redundancy proposal was being pursued for an ulterior motive.

The letter called Mr Kenna into a meeting two days later, offered him a paid day to prepare, and reminded him of his right to representation. Mr Kenna attended the 13 June 2024 meeting. The parties gave sharply different accounts of what was said, but the Authority noted that no meeting notes were produced and the worker at the centre of the concern (Tracey Grose) did not give evidence at the investigation meeting.

Mr Kenna's evidence was that he asked for particulars so he could respond properly, but he was not given them. Ms Mathieson also told him the meeting was "not disciplinary", which only added to the confusion about what process was being run and what consequences were being considered.

Even on Anztec's account, the aftermath was not handled well. There was no prompt written outcome letter to clarify what (if anything) had been resolved, what expectations applied, and whether the employer considered the issue closed. Ms Mathieson also confirmed at the investigation meeting that she destroyed her contemporaneous notes of the 13 June meeting. The Authority treated these features as poor practice and a key reason why the later restructuring process was viewed with suspicion.

The redundancy proposal and consultation correspondence

Mr Kenna took annual leave to travel overseas on 25 October 2024. Mr Kenna says up to the point of leaving he was very busy assembling product. Mr Grose conceded this but claimed it was only to ensure he was up to date with client orders before he left for a lengthy absence (5 weeks). A temporary worker was engaged to complete assembly work in Mr Kenna's absence. Mr Grose says this was not indicative of ongoing orders needing to be addressed but an emergency order from a client who had had a system vandalised. Mr Grose further asserted that he discussed the downturn in orders for the main product Mr Kenna was assembling, just prior to him going on leave. Mr Kenna says he had no formal meeting but did recall overhearing while he was working, some discussion about orders between Shane and Tracey Grose.

Shortly after Mr Kenna returned from leave on 26 November, he was handed a 29 November letter proposing to disestablish his position. A restructuring proposal that Mr Grose says they were assisted by Ms Mathieson in preparing. Mr Grose says they had formulated the proposal prior to Mr Kenna taking leave but chose to delay its delivery to not spoil Mr Kenna's holiday. Mr Grose says no new orders were received while Mr Kenna was on leave. The 29 November proposal

The letter of 29 November, referred to a proposal to restructure the "QC and QW Payment Terminals Department" and purported to be an ongoing discussion from prior to Mr Kenna going on leave, with Mr Kenna being supposedly aware of the demand for products he was manufacturing and related services "declining significantly due to advancements in technology and shifting customer preferences". The letter then noted "this trend" over recent months had led to a reduced workflow leaving Mr Kenna's department underutilised. The letter then indicated after careful consideration and "guidance from our business advisors" they were proposing a restructure that solely impacted Mr Kenna's role. The proposed changes were in summary: 1. Gradually phase out the production of QC Machines and QW payment terminals "due to the absence of sales and workflow" and as a result the "Senior Assembly technician within this department is deemed surplus to requirements". 2. The business was to focus on new development work, and this department could handle any work on "legacy equipment". 3. All remaining and continuing roles would focus on new development work.

The letter then stated that "after reviewing potential opportunities in the new development department, none matched Mr Kenna's existing skill set and therefore, he was at risk of being made redundant. The letter proceeded to offer a 'consultation meeting" on 5 December, at which Anztec's employment relations consultant would be present to provide guidance. Mr Kenna was reminded of his right to representation and invited to seek clarity on any matters prior to the meeting. The letter referred to an attached 'proposed organisation chart' but this was not provided until 3 December. Mr Kenna says on receiving the chart he was surprised to see the current organisation structure being divided into separate divisions saying this was an alien organisational concept to him. Mr Kenna's initial response

Mr Kenna responded with an email of 4 December to Tracey Grose, requesting further information and a three-day extension to seek advice; noting he was unaware of any meeting or discussion before he went on holiday traversing the future of his work. In the email, Mr Kenna described a random "out of the blue" discussion referencing accountants, sub- assemblies and stock units; suggesting none of it made any sense as he recalled being otherwise very busy completing assembly work prior to his holiday. Mr Kenna also challenged the notion he knew about a decline in product demand suggesting comparative units built between 2023 and 2024 showed this claim to be "erroneous".

The information Mr Kenna requested included data evidencing declining sales demand; questioned why a temporary worker had been engaged in his absence and generally why his role was superfluous when he could still be working on the phase out of current product and assisting on making new machines which in his view, would mean more, not less assembly work. Mr Kenna then contested the view that he was not qualified or experienced enough to work on introducing new products; referencing his extensive CV and contrasting himself with other staff who he perceived as underqualified and less experienced. Further, he questioned the need for haste when currently he said he had up to three weeks building work to do and another five weeks to build stock units and three units on the production noticeboard. Beyond this work, he asked how future order projections had been determined. Mr Kenna then posited that he had been told a newly developed prototype machine was due to go into production early in 2025. Mr Kenna then questioned why skilled technical staff had not been prioritised for retention and suggested if orders were indeed sparse, a reduction of hours shared with Tracey and the technician could be examined until work picked up.

Mr Kenna ended his email saying if he did not obtain satisfactory answers or an alternative solution he felt he had "grounds for unfair dismissal through redundancy". Anztec's interim responses

By email of 5 December, Shane and Tracey Grose responded by indicating they would reschedule the consultation meeting to 11 December and they did not intend to provide a detailed response to Mr Kenna's 5 December email, until 9 December. The employer's 9 December response did not engage with the detail of Mr Kenna's information requests and instead focused on process and next steps. They reiterated they intended to proceed with consultation in a "fair, open and transparent manner" to concentrate on "the proposal, its rationale, and your feedback".

In a further letter of 9 December, Shane and Tracey Grose comprehensively addressed and countered the points Mr Kenna had raised (rejecting all his alternative suggestions to retain his employment status), asserting that although they may get occasional further orders for the product Mr Kenna was assembling, they considered it an obsolete item which they had been monitoring its declining demand for several years. A 2024 'sales spike' was alluded to, but their view was this was not indicative of a market recovery. Overall, they noted there were "currently no orders and no machines in production" and their new product remained "at least six months away from production commencement."

However, crucially, no financial data (such as a profit and loss statement) or comparative sales figures were disclosed. At the investigation meeting, Mr Grose described the latter information as being deliberately withheld as in his view it was confidential and he was not confident Mr Kenna would respect this. Mr Grose was of the view that Mr Kenna had access to a production board that recorded incoming work and could see that no orders were incoming. Mr Grose says they did not get a specific analysis from their accountant or business advisors but consulted various people in the business regarding potential sales for their products. Mr Grose disclosed a copy of a letter from a major distributor (dated 9 December 2024) generally suggesting Anztec's wash entry machines were "nearing obsolescence due to its age, limited functionality, and competitive market conditions" and they were looking forward to Anztec's new product "in the middle of next year". At the investigation meeting Anztec disclosed an accountant's email of 16 February 2026, suggesting their sales had decreased by 25% in the financial year to date and a trading loss was likely as this was coupled with increasing material overheads. Mr Grose says this relatively good figure for orders was distorted as it included a 'one off' order for a credit card machine that had artificially boosted sales.

Mr Grose says the decision to make Mr Kenna's position redundant was not a financial one but based on an informed view that future orders of the product he worked on, could not sustain the role Mr Kenna occupied. Evidence given at the investigation meeting was that Anztec has stopped making the wash entry machine "a couple of months ago" due to no orders (i.e. at or around December 2025). However, after the investigation meeting Anztec produced a table that showed 20 sales of wash entry systems in 2025 (in contrast with 43 in 2024). In addition, Anztec provided their profit and loss statement for 10 months ending 31 January 2026 evidencing a modest net profit.

I observe the 5 December letter inappropriately addresses redeployment as a prospect too early in the process by suggesting Mr Kenna's experience made him unsuitable for deployment into the development team as this "would require extensive training, disrupt the current team and displace fully integrated, experienced members". This unfortunately conveyed an impression that the decision had already been made to disestablish Mr Kenna's role and not engage constructively on alternatives to his redundancy. Mr Kenna's view was his extensive CV and experience on project managing new products had not been acknowledged. I also observe Mr Kenna's original job description included "Prototype assembly/evaluation" as a duty he had to undertake. There is also mention in the job description of Mr Kenna having a role in re-designing current production methods/systems and re-configuration and reallocation of production resources. All suggesting Mr Kenna could play a role in the introduction of new products. Mr Grose at the investigation meeting however, suggested Mr Kenna lacked experience designing circuit boards and in writing software but no discussion on this occurred as Mr Kenna did not subsequently attend the consultation meeting offered. The consultation meeting

The consultation meeting was rescheduled to 11 December, but after initially agreeing to attend Mr Kenna did not present, and he sent an email around noon on the meeting day to Tracey Grose (who with Shane and their advisor were waiting for Mr Kenna to arrive), indicating: I popped out to pickup my support person for the meeting but ran into some difficulties. Please proceed with meeting in my absence and send on any relevant information in writing via email.

Mr Kenna at the investigation meeting suggested another meeting should have been convened but he did not request one and he in hindsight, acknowledged he had signalled from this point in time he just wanted to correspond in writing. Mr Kenna also confirmed he had not engaged legal advice and the support person he referred to, was a friend who he merely wanted to attend as a witness to the conversation and to take notes.

In response, by email at 3:28 pm of 11 December, the Groses sternly admonished Mr Kenna for not attending the consultation meeting they had convened and gave him until 8am the following day to submit any further feedback and noted they had set time aside to conclude their deliberation before making a preliminary decision on the proposal to make Mr Kenna redundant. Observing the deadline, Mr Kenna emailed Tracy Grose at 4:35 am on 12 December. The Groses responded but the email is a lengthy contentious reiterating of themes already traversed in previous correspondence. Mr Kenna's main contention was his role was not limited to wash entry machine work and that Anztec had unfairly singled out his role and not considered cutting back staffing overhead costs in other areas or innovative solutions such as job-sharing. All of Mr Kenna's suggestions were dismissed as unfeasible.

In a further letter emailed at 1:56 pm on 13 December, Anztec issued what purported to be a "Preliminary decision to proceed with the restructuring process". The letter rejected redeployment options after suggesting they had been carefully considered. A heading "Next steps" called for further "final; remarks by 4pm Friday, 13 December, before a final decision is made". The letter while noting offering counselling support was not "legally required", offered paid leave for the day so Mr Kennna could obtain support or advice and, potential assistance with updating his CV and interview skills was alluded to. The letter concluded should the process result in Mr Kenna's role being disestablished he would get four weeks' notice and be placed on garden leave during this period. I observe Mr Kenna's employment agreement had a confusing provision describing payment in lieu of notice as also being known as "garden leave". The employment agreement also had a provision specifying no redundancy compensation or other redundancy entitlements would be offered and no compensation was offered.

Mr Kenna made no further submissions and by way of a letter dated 16 December, Anztec confirmed that Mr Kenna was redundant with four weeks' notice in which he was directed to take garden leave. No written reference was offered other than Mr Kenna could request a certificate of service and assistance with interviewing skills and CV preparation. Submissions

Submissions (including the disputed disclosure point)

Ms Mathieson emphasised Anztec made a genuine commercial decision on reasonably identified grounds, to phase out a 25-year-old product and it was not the Authority's role to question this business strategy but rather to determine whether the decision to make Mr Kenna redundant and the process utilised met statutory justification and good faith requirements. Ms Mathieson detailed what Anztec considered to be extensive consultation and consideration of Mr Kenna's perspective and rejected any suggestion that the decision was pre-determined or ill motivated. Ms Mathieson concluded Anztec had undertaken a genuine restructure to address insufficient ongoing work. In a later submission, addressing the failure to share financial information during the consultation phase, Ms Mathieson suggested without citing any authority, that: "There is no statutory obligation to disclose commercially sensitive information where redundancy is operational rather than insolvency - based".

Mr Anderson by contrast, asserted Mr Kenna had been unjustifiably dismissed because Anztec had wrongly decided early in the process he was not suitable for any other role in the business, suggesting the decision to dismiss was pre-determined and that Anztec has failed to make out genuine reasons for the need to restructure their business. In the alternative, Mr Anderson suggested Mr Kenna had established an implied ulterior motive existed by linking the unresolved mid-June conduct allegations to the subsequent restructuring proposal. Mr Anderson in addressing Ms Mathieson's assertion on disclosure of information, posited that the "proper question is what objective information" did Anztec rely upon and "what it disclosed during consultation" as they were obliged under good faith obligations to provide access to relevant information and an opportunity for the worker to comment on such before a decision is made. Mr Anderson concluded the information provided was limited and not sufficiently meaningful to engender feedback on the restructuring proposal.

Mr Anderson's submission suggests Mr Kenna's employment ended by reason of a flawed redundancy process. He essentially claims that Anztec's failure to sufficiently disclose requested financial information hampered his ability to respond to the redundancy proposal and this resulted in him being treated unfairly and that Anztec did not genuinely consider his feedback and/or closed off their minds to exploring other alternatives by refusing to engage with the wider staff and focussing solely on the position Mr Kenna occupied. The legal framework

Legal framework

Mr Kenna's employment agreement contained no provisions defining a redundancy situation. Given that there is no statutory definition of redundancy it has long been established in common law that a redundancy arises where a specific position is superfluous to the needs of an employer's business, which establishes an abstract construct where it is the position and not the person that is redundant. 1

However, the above is only an overarching definition that does not necessarily address the spectrum of how a redundancy arises and in what context. To justify termination of employment including in a redundancy situation, Anztec must meet statutory requirements set out in s 103A of the Act commonly referred to as the 'justification test'. This test requires the Authority to undertake an objective assessment of whether the employer's actions and how it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could do in all the circumstances at the time of the ending of the employment relationship. In applying this test, the Authority must consider several factors including: the resources available to the employer and here in context, whether 1 GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 (CA) affirmed as still applicable law in Grace Team Accounting v Brake [2015] 2 NZLR 494. the employer gave Mr Kenna an opportunity to comment on the proposal to end the employment relationship and whether that comment was genuinely considered.

The Court of Appeal in Grace Team Accounting v Brake 2 has ruled that an employer claiming to be in a redundancy situation is only entitled to justifiably end an employment relationship for valid and demonstrable commercial reasons and when looking at applying the s 103A tests has said: If the decision to make an employee redundant is shown not to be genuine (where genuine means the decision is based on business requirements and not used as a pretext for dismissing a disliked employee), it is hard to see how it could be found to be what a fair and reasonable employer would or could do. The converse does not necessarily apply. But, if an employer can show the redundancy is genuine and that the notice and consultation requirements of s.4 of the Act have been duly complied with, that could be expected to go a long way towards satisfying the s.103A test.

However, the Court of Appeal has also affirmed that the Authority is entitled to enquire into the merits of a redundancy without necessarily substituting its business judgment for that of the employer. 3

In essence, the above requires the Authority to determine first if the redundancy was genuine (an assessment that must exclude any ulterior motive) and then whether it was enacted in a procedurally fair manner. Good faith

To ensure a redundancy is enacted in a procedurally fair manner, good faith obligations also apply as set out in s 4 of the Act - these include a positive disclosure obligation of an affected employee being provided with access to information supporting the reason for the redundancy and the detail of how it is proposed it will be implemented. Further, an employee must be afforded an opportunity to comment on any redundancy proposal prior to a decision being finalised. In the Employment Court decision Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd key the process is described as: Consultation involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided on, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses, and then deciding what will be done. Consultation must be a reality, not a charade. Employees must know what 2 N 1 at [85]. 3 N1 [84] see also G N Hale and Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers etc IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151 (CA). is proposed before they can be expected to give their view on it. This requires the provision of sufficiently precise information, in a timely manner. The employer, while quite entitled to have a working plan already in mind, must have an open mind and be ready to change and even start anew. 4 Assessment

Findings: genuineness vs process

Assessing whether a redundancy is genuine is typically a subjective exercise and this situation is particularly fraught given the size of the organisation that was objectively driven by sound commercial imperatives. My first observation is, Anztec had reasonable grounds to fear that their key product may become obsolete or uncompetitive, and plans were in train to develop an alternative while phasing out the existing product. Potential obsolescence was a genuine reason to look at the future resource needs of the company, but it is arguable that only a very narrow analysis was undertaken and this did not involve Mr Kenna. What I was not convinced about was whether genuine alternatives were seriously considered and the failure to consider involving the rest of the staff in a review does point to a lack of open mindedness. In a small group of workers faced with a need to reduce expenditure it is inevitable that others would be impacted in some way and they should have been consulted. While the various roles undertaken were distinct, wider options for reducing expenditure could have been explored and as the Employment Court held in Harris v Charter Trucks it can be a "fundamental flaw" to not consult all employees potentially affected by a proposed restructuring. 5 This situation was however complicated by the Groses working within their business.

The Authority found the Groses were too reliant on what was at times questionable advice from their advisor (Lynda Mathieson), who appeared not sufficiently aware of the legal obligations at stake. The clumsily worded earlier conduct-concerns letter, and the lack of clear follow-up afterwards, created a very real perception the later restructuring was being pursued for an ulterior motive. Coupled with a lack of general communication with Mr Kenna over time, it is not difficult to see why he was highly suspicious of being singled out for redundancy. While Mr Grose made some significant effort to counter this perception and attempted to engage with Mr Kenna during the consultation phase the damage had already been 4 Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [2017] ERNZ 352 at [54]. 5 Harris v Charter Trucks, CC 16A/07, CRC 8/06, 19 December 2007 at [69]. done and the subsequent consultation letters' wording should have been handled with more sensitivity. Were good faith obligations met?

Turning to the process adopted, I find a significant procedural flaw was not providing sufficient economic information and sales data to explain the rationale for the targeting of Mr Kenna's role. Clearly an analysis of this information partially drove the restructure and for Mr Kenna to understand why it was necessary to urgently reduce expenditure, he needed to view more detail. I do not accept that in the circumstances given the size of the organisation and very limited domestic competitors that there was any genuine commercial risk to disclosure. If this had indeed been a worry, then undertakings could have been sought on confidentiality.

Section 4(1A)(c) of the Act unequivocally states it: ... requires an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his employees to provide to the employees affected - i. access to information, relevant to the continuation of the employees' employment, about the decision; and ii. an opportunity to comment on the information to their employer before the decision is made. (my emphasis).

The above is a positive disclosure obligation designed to facilitate an opportunity for an employee to comment on information relevant to the continuation of their employment. It is not a game of 'cat and mouse' with information only being disclosed when sought. I find this obligation was not met. This robbed Mr Kenna of both a full explanation for his redundancy and an opportunity for informed input. These are key good faith obligations. I, however, am just convinced that the restructuring made sense as a concept but less convinced by evidence on the haste involved and the lack of attention to retaining Mr Kenna's wider skills in a transition period. In the event, the sales figures belatedly provided to the Authority showed that Mr Grose's prediction of further declining sales was fairly accurate albeit a decline that was not as drastic as he portrayed it to Mr Kenna.

I also observe given the size of the operation there were no redeployment positions available beyond considering how Mr Kenna's skills could have been utilised in the company's desire to transition to a new product that at the time of the restructure (and the investigation meeting) had not been realised. This could have included consulting the other technician and exploring more carefully, alternative options such as reducing hours or job sharing. Anztec appear to have dismissed these options 'out of hand'.

For completeness, I find the reasoning behind the redundancy was genuine and did not involve an explicit ulterior motive, although the timing and prior communications meant Mr Kenna was understandably suspicious and actively sought to test the rationale and explore alternatives.

I have identified that Anztec did not comply with good faith obligations in financial information sharing and in the way they peremptorily ruled out deploying Mr Kenna's skills elsewhere in the consultation process and did not conclusively establish the need for haste in disestablishing his role when the business could have potentially benefited from his skills in a transitional period. The Authority acknowledged there were practical difficulties in the consultation timetable, but it treated Anztec's disclosure and consultation defects as decisive.

Notwithstanding, I find Mr Kenna was not provided with a sufficient opportunity for informed comment on the decision to dismiss him. These procedural defects resulted in Mr Kenna being treated unfairly and I find Anztec breached its good faith obligations. Was Mr Kenna's dismissal justified?

I find the breaches of good faith that I have identified above ended Mr Kenna's employment relationship prematurely in a manner that did not fall within the parameters of what a notional, fair, and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time. However, I am satisfied from the evidence now produced albeit not shared with Mr Kenna during the consultation phase, that the decision to disestablish Mr Kenna's role was made for sound long term business reasons and it was a genuine redundancy. I was also not persuaded on the evidence, that the redundancy was effected for an ulterior motive. I find from this analysis that although there were some significant and distressing unjustified procedural defects that impacted on Mr Kenna, the dismissal was nevertheless substantively justified on the ground it was a genuine redundancy situation. What if any remedies are appropriate?

Remedies and contribution

As I have found Mr Kenna's redundancy was genuine and his dismissal substantively justified, I cannot award lost remuneration. However, because Anztec failed to follow a fair consultation process consistent with good faith obligations, I find that Mr Kenna has been unjustifiably disadvantaged and is entitled to consideration of remedies. I consider the following discretionary remedy holistically address the employment relationship concerns.

Mr Kenna gave evidence of the significant impact of his dismissal and the uncertainty it created at a difficult time to find immediate alternative employment in his specialised field. He explained that this had a major impact upon his confidence and well-being and relationships. He was particularly upset about the manner of his dismissal. His legitimate concern that I find must have been distressing and humiliating was Anztec's failure to recognise his extensive skill set and the dismissive attitude they had to Mr Kenna's abilities and experience that showed he could adapt and be an asset to a company in a transitional phase.

Mr Kenna explained with some conviction that the way he was treated during the consultation process caused humiliation as he felt communication from the Groses was hostile and chastising when he was only seeking to fully understand the rationale for his role being disestablished. The humiliation was exacerbated from Mr Kenna's perspective from a feeling that his former employer did not appreciate his commitment to their business. Mr Kenna who struck me as a proud and capable individual, says he struggled to cope with the decision to end his employment and had sleeping and mood issues that he sought medical attention for. Mr Kenna had a deep sense of betrayal that he had been unnecessarily isolated by the redundancy process.

I am convinced that Mr Kenna suffered humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings for a reasonably lengthy period before he could resolve his employment situation and that this must have been an extremely alienating experience.

Considering all the circumstances including awards made by the Authority in similar cases, I consider Mr Kenna's evidence warrants a reasonably significant compensatory amount. I fix that sum at $15,000 under s123 (1)(c)(i) of the Act. Contribution

Section 124 of the Act states that I must consider the extent to what, if any, Mr Kenna's actions contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance and assess whether any calculated remedy should be reduced. In these circumstances, I can find no reason to reduce the remedies awarded above as Mr Kenna's response to the restructuring proposal although robust, was understandable in the circumstances of him being effectively side-lined by his employer. In this respect, Mr Kenna was not engaged in any misconduct and did not act in a blameworthy or culpable manner that gave rise to his personal grievance occurring. Orders

Costs

I have found that: a. Thomas Patrick Kenna was unjustifiably disadvantaged during the restructuring process his former employer Anztec Limited enacted and as a result the following remedy is ordered. b. Anztec Limited must pay Thomas Patrick Kenna $15,000 compensation pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Costs

Costs are reserved.

The parties are encouraged to resolve any issue of costs between themselves.

If the parties are unable to resolve costs, and an Authority determination on costs is needed, Thomas Patrick Kenna may lodge, and then should serve, a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the date of issue of this determination. From the date of service of that memorandum Anztec Limited will then have 14 days to lodge any reply memorandum. Upon request by either party, an extension of time for the parties to continue to negotiate costs between themselves may be granted.

The parties can expect the Authority to determine costs, if asked to do so, on its usual "daily tariff" basis unless circumstances or factors, require an adjustment upwards or downwards.6 David G Beck Member of the Employment Relations Authority 6 For further information about the factors considered in assessing costs see: www.era.govt.nz/determinations/awarding-costs-remedies/#awarding-and-paying-costs-1

Practical takeaways

• A redundancy can be genuine yet still generate liability if consultation is not real and relevant information is not proactively disclosed.
• Good faith disclosure (s 4(1A)(c)) is a positive obligation - not a game of 'cat and mouse' where only some information is drip-fed after requests (para [50]).
• If you accuse an employee of serious misconduct, specify the actual incidents and keep records. Vague pejorative allegations and then no follow-up can poison trust and later redundancy processes.
• Do not pre-empt redeployment conclusions in the proposal letter. Premature statements that the employee is 'not suitable' for any other role can look like predetermination.
• If costs cannot be agreed, follow the timetable: applicant memo within 28 days of the determination, reply within 14 days after service (paras [63]-[66]).

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.