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
![Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805 - suspension without process, bullying, and redundancy while on ACC leave; $25,000 compensation plus arrears and penalty](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A chef at Coffee Studio was suspended by WeChat without notice or clarification of pay, then ignored when he asked for a meeting and leave records. While on ACC leave for a wrist injury, he was given redundancy notice without consultation. The ERA upheld unjustified disadvantage and unjustified...
A marketing manager's role was disestablished in a redundancy. The ERA accepted business reasons could exist, but held the consultation was not genuine: key information was withheld, outcomes were effectively predetermined, and redeployment was not properly consulted on. The dismissal was...
The Authority made monetary and/or other orders. The applicant, Ms Glenice Cooper, worked as a Marketing Manager for Mr Fraser-Jones, as part of the real estate team working for the respondent Success Realty Limited (SRL). On 19... Key amounts include compensation of $75,000, $35,000.
A cabinet maker's work was ended by a text message saying there would be no more work next week. The business had moved and quietly shifted operations from one company to a related company. The ERA held the 'no work' message was effectively a unilateral termination without consultation or...
A clinic worker was dismissed for redundancy after the employer became insolvent, lost its lease, and transferred the business to a third party. The ERA accepted insolvency drove the closure, but held redundancy consultation was still required and the dismissal was unjustified. Orders: $2,035.50...
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.
