The Employment Court upheld a determination of the Employment Relations Authority that an employer pay its former employee substantial compensation for hurt and humiliation in remedy of the redundancy having been found unjustifiable.
Redundancy is defined at common law as a situation where an employee's position becomes surplus to the needs of the employer. A redundancy is treated by the Courts as a dismissal, therefore it must be genuine and carried out in a procedurally fair way.
Redundancy is a form of dismissal where the employer says your position is no longer needed. Even if the business decision is genuine, the employer must follow a fair process and the outcome must be one a fair and reasonable employer could have reached (section 103A - test of justification).
A "genuine redundancy" is not about whether you are a good employee - it is about whether the employer genuinely no longer needs the job to be done in the same way. If redundancy is used as a pretext to remove a person, it can be an unjustified dismissal.
There is no automatic statutory redundancy compensation. Entitlement usually depends on your employment agreement (or sometimes a workplace policy or established practice).
If you are facing redundancy (or have already been made redundant), we can assess whether the redundancy was genuine and whether the employer followed a fair process under
section 103A, and if not, raise a Personal Grievance (PG) and pursue appropriate remedies.
Employee Case Form
The Employment Court upheld a determination of the Employment Relations Authority that an employer pay its former employee substantial compensation for hurt and humiliation in remedy of the redundancy having been found unjustifiable.
![Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A senior journalist/editor with 18 years at Radio Waatea was made redundant after a restructure merging English and Maori newsroom functions. The ERA accepted the restructure had genuine business reasons, but held the redundancy dismissal unjustified because key proposal information was not fairly shared, the employee was not clearly told his role was at risk until the termination day, and redeployment options were not consulted on. Orders: $24,230.77 lost wages (plus interest and KiwiSaver), $19,000 compensation, and a $1,500 Wages Protection Act penalty (half to the employee).
ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.
ERA held a fixed-term seasonal worker was unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy because the employer decided to select him for redundancy before meeting him and did not consult. Although the business case to disestablish one fixed-term role was accepted as genuine, the selection process was...
The Authority ordered remedies, including compensation and/or payment of entitlements. [40] Then in a follow up email at 10:49 am on 26 September 2024 CVC confirmed its
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Mr Mon was dismissed by text message on 19 July 2023, and his employment came to an end two weeks later on 2 August 2023 after Mr Mon had worked out his notice period.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Ms Bell alleges that the redundancy was not genuine, and that the process followed was procedurally and substantively flawed, resulting in both unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, and a breach of...
A penalty determination was made. Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure.