VAN HEERDEN v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 217

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, Mr and Mrs van Heerden were both advised their positions had been disestablished and their employment had been terminated on the grounds of redundancy during a meeting held with them both on 30 January 2024. After that, Longevity denied that Mr van Heerden's redundancy dismissal was unjustified. Later, The respondents' in their submissions lodged after the conclusion of the investigation meeting submitted that Mr van Heerden had been made redundant for (quoted wording omitted), but they accepted that Longevity had not followed a (quoted wording omitted) when making him redundant. The determination records that Prior to the investigation meeting in December 2024 he withdrew claims that he had also been employed by Longevity before he became an employee on 29 May 2023. The Authority notes that The first Mr van Heerden knew that his ongoing employment was in jeopardy was when he was told at the meeting on 30 January 2024 that his role had been disestablished and he had been made redundant. Ultimately, The decision to make Mr van Heerden redundant had obviously already been made in advance of it being communicated to him on 30 January 2024. In the end, The discussion of other factors (performance and conduct) that were not relevant to the restructure suggested that Mr van Heerden's redundancy was not for a genuine commercial reason, as there were other improper motives involved.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are VAN HEERDEN (employee) and LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 3, 4 and 10 December 2024 (3 Days).
• Authority member: Rachel Larmer.

Key events described

• Mr and Mrs van Heerden were both advised their positions had been disestablished and their employment had been terminated on the grounds of redundancy during a meeting held with them both on 30 January 2024.
• Longevity denied that Mr van Heerden's redundancy dismissal was unjustified.
• The respondents' in their submissions lodged after the conclusion of the investigation meeting submitted that Mr van Heerden had been made redundant for (quoted wording omitted), but they accepted that Longevity had not followed a (quoted wording omitted) when making him redundant.
• Prior to the investigation meeting in December 2024 he withdrew claims that he had also been employed by Longevity before he became an employee on 29 May 2023.
• The first Mr van Heerden knew that his ongoing employment was in jeopardy was when he was told at the meeting on 30 January 2024 that his role had been disestablished and he had been made redundant.
• The decision to make Mr van Heerden redundant had obviously already been made in advance of it being communicated to him on 30 January 2024.
• The discussion of other factors (performance and conduct) that were not relevant to the restructure suggested that Mr van Heerden's redundancy was not for a genuine commercial reason, as there were other improper motives involved.
• He had only spent approximately 56 hours out of his normal 1040 hours of work in the six months leading up to his redundancy dismissal on renovation work.
• Longevity failed to sufficiently investigate what work Mr van Heerden was actually doing, or what work his role covered, before it made him redundant.
• The failure of Longevity to meet any of its minimum good faith or procedural fairness obligations has fundamentally undermined its ability to justify Mr van Heerden's redundancy dismissal.
• The reason given by Mr Corin in an email to Mr van Heerden dated 2 February 2024 for his redundancy was that (quoted wording omitted).
• Longevity also fundamentally undermined its ability to justify Mr van Heerden's redundancy dismissal by giving inconsistent accounts of the reasons why his employment had been ended.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $35,000
• Lost remuneration: $166,153.85
• Lost benefit: $4,984.62
• Lost wages / arrears: $770.12
• Penalty: $500
• 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.