XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502

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, Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure. After that, In April 2024 there was a monthly management meeting at which restructuring the business was discussed, and a consultation process was commenced in the Vikon construction and cabinet- making businesses, which resulted in two redundancies. Later, Ms Xu said Ms Qiu informed her on 11 June 2024 that her position was redundant. The determination records that On 12 June 2025 Ms Xu received an email from the Vikon management team member advising her that ... due to the downturn in business, your position as Architectural Technician has been identified as redundant. The Authority notes that Ms Xu was dismissed from her employment with Abhyudaya by reason of redundancy. Ultimately, The Authority found there was a genuine reason for the redundancy and substantive justification for the redundancy decision affecting Ms Xu. In the end, It had not employed many employees prior to the restructure and following the redundancy exercise was even smaller, less than 10 employees in total.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are XU (employee) and ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 5 August 2025.
• Authority member: Eleanor Robinson.

Key events described

• Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure.
• In April 2024 there was a monthly management meeting at which restructuring the business was discussed, and a consultation process was commenced in the Vikon construction and cabinet- making businesses, which resulted in two redundancies.
• Ms Xu said Ms Qiu informed her on 11 June 2024 that her position was redundant.
• On 12 June 2025 Ms Xu received an email from the Vikon management team member advising her that ... due to the downturn in business, your position as Architectural Technician has been identified as redundant.
• Ms Xu was dismissed from her employment with Abhyudaya by reason of redundancy.
• The Authority found there was a genuine reason for the redundancy and substantive justification for the redundancy decision affecting Ms Xu.
• It had not employed many employees prior to the restructure and following the redundancy exercise was even smaller, less than 10 employees in total.
• Mr Huang's evidence was that Ms Qiu had been told to tell Ms Xu her role was being considered for redundancy on 27 May 2024, however Ms Qiu's evidence was that she had not informed Ms Xu of this.
• Although The Authority accepted that Ms Xu had been informed the decline architectural design enquiries, and the possibility of reducing her role to part-time or supplementing it with supplemented by other duties, she had not informed that her position was redundant until 11 June 2024.
• As a consequence The Authority found there had been no consultation with Ms Xu before she was advised that her position was redundant on 11 June 2024.
• Mr Huang's evidence was that there had been a discussion between him and Ms Xu on the afternoon of 11 June 2024, however that post-dated the redundancy decision.
• The Authority found that Ms Xu was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Abhyudaya during the process adopted during the redundancy situation.

Decision markers

• Looking firstly at the substantive justification The Authority found that Ms Xu was aware from Ms Qiu that Abhyudaya was facing a decline in architectural design work.
• The Authority found there was a genuine reason for the redundancy and substantive justification for the redundancy decision affecting Ms Xu.
• As a consequence The Authority found there had been no consultation with Ms Xu before she was advised that her position was redundant on 11 June 2024.
• The Authority found that Ms Xu was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Abhyudaya during the process adopted during the redundancy situation.
• The Authority found that Ms Xu's period of unemployment was from 9 to 16 July 2024 when she obtained other employment.
• The Authority found the redundancy decision had a genuine business basis, but the dismissal was procedurally unjustified due to inadequate consultation.
• The Authority also found an unjustified disadvantage but made no additional remedy for that disadvantage.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration: $1,569.00 gross
• Compensation: $10,000.00
• 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.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• 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.