WILLIAMS v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 215

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 (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Williams claimed this summary dismissal of him, on the grounds of redundancy, was procedurally and substantively unjustified and that Longevity failed to meet its good faith obligations to him. After that, The respondents' in their submissions lodged after the conclusion of the investigation meeting submitted that Mr Williams had been made redundant for (quoted wording omitted), but they accepted that Longevity had not followed a (quoted wording omitted) when making him redundant. Later, During the course of the Authority's investigation meeting the respondents appeared to reluctantly acknowledge that Mr Williams' employment was ended by the email Mr Corin sent him on 17 March 2024. The determination records that Mr Williams was dismissed by Mr Corin's email dated 17 March 2024 that informed him he had been made redundant immediately. The Authority notes that The first that Mr Williams knew about his ongoing employment being in jeopardy was when he received Mr Corin's email on 17 March 2024 that advised him he had been made redundant. Ultimately, No information accompanied Mr Corin's email to Mr Williams and the decision to make him redundant had already been made. In the end, Longevity failed to sufficiently investigate the cost overruns that it had claimed had resulted in Mr Williams' redundancy, in breach of s 103A(3)(a) of the Act.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are WILLIAMS (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 Williams claimed this summary dismissal of him, on the grounds of redundancy, was procedurally and substantively unjustified and that Longevity failed to meet its good faith obligations to him.
• The respondents' in their submissions lodged after the conclusion of the investigation meeting submitted that Mr Williams had been made redundant for (quoted wording omitted), but they accepted that Longevity had not followed a (quoted wording omitted) when making him redundant.
• During the course of the Authority's investigation meeting the respondents appeared to reluctantly acknowledge that Mr Williams' employment was ended by the email Mr Corin sent him on 17 March 2024.
• Mr Williams was dismissed by Mr Corin's email dated 17 March 2024 that informed him he had been made redundant immediately.
• The first that Mr Williams knew about his ongoing employment being in jeopardy was when he received Mr Corin's email on 17 March 2024 that advised him he had been made redundant.
• No information accompanied Mr Corin's email to Mr Williams and the decision to make him redundant had already been made.
• Longevity failed to sufficiently investigate the cost overruns that it had claimed had resulted in Mr Williams' redundancy, in breach of s 103A(3)(a) of the Act.
• Sufficient evidence was presented to the Authority that suggested had Longevity met its minimum good faith and procedural fairness obligations, then Mr Williams' redundancy dismissal could potentially have been avoided.
• It was not open to a fair and reasonable employer in Longevity's situation to have concluded that Mr Williams needed to be made redundant without consulting with him about that and/or carefully considering possible redeployment options.
• Accordingly, Longevity's dismissal of Mr Williams' on the grounds of redundancy was procedurally and substantively unjustified.
• The dismissal email stated that (quoted wording omitted) However, Mr Williams was not paid in lieu of notice.
• Longevity was ordered to pay Mr Williams $2,911.65 gross lost remuneration being his continuing loss for the 15 weeks' period from 2 December 2024 (the date of his promotion) until 17 March 2025, which was 12 months after he had been dismissed.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $25,000
• Notice period pay:$10,465.44
• Holiday pay: $1, 977.60
• Lost remuneration: $30,515.63
• 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.