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.
Check My Case
A redundancy can fail in more than one way. The employer may not have a genuine business reason for removing the position, or the underlying restructure may be genuine but the dismissal process may still be unjustified because consultation, disclosure, selection or redeployment was not handled fairly. The question is not simply whether the employer can point to a restructure document. The reason for dismissal and the way the decision was reached both matter.
Where a restructure removes only some positions, the selection exercise can become the centre of the dispute. Criteria should relate to the genuine needs of the proposed structure, employees should have a meaningful opportunity to comment on information that affects them, and scoring should not be manipulated to remove a particular person. Ask for the criteria, weightings, scores and the information used to reach them.
A redundancy process should address whether there are suitable alternative roles before employment ends. A vacancy may not be identical to the old job. Depending on the circumstances, experience, transferable skills and reasonable training can all matter when assessing whether redeployment was genuinely considered.
A later advertisement or replacement hire does not automatically prove that the original redundancy was a sham, but it can be important evidence. Compare the new role with the old role: duties, reporting line, hours, location, seniority, skills and when the employer decided the work was still required. Preserve screenshots and job advertisements rather than relying on memory later.
Examples from the ERA case library:
Put the proposal, feedback, selection material, redeployment correspondence and outcome letter together. The issue is usually much easier to assess from the actual documents than from the final redundancy letter alone.
Check My Redundancy Case Personal Grievance guide![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)
After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.
Aiga Faamanu Roache's Accounts Payable Team Leader role at Pamu was disestablished after automation reduced manual finance processing. The ERA examined whether Pamu had actually explained why her leadership role was surplus, allowed meaningful consultation and handled redeployment properly.
Mt Outdoors terminated seasonal retail worker Cameron Roweth's fixed-term role early when winter trading was weaker than expected. The business had a genuine need to reduce labour costs, but selected him for redundancy without consulting him about the selection decision.
Wendy Darrell's dispute with Canterbury Vehicle concerned the ending of her employment and associated employment entitlements. The ERA considered whether the employer's conduct met the justification standard and what compensation or payments were required for the breaches established.
Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.
KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.
After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.
Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.
