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![Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited [2025] NZERA 599 - redundancy without consultation despite insolvency](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Limei Wang was made redundant by Serenity Float Clinic while the business was in serious financial difficulty. The issue was not whether insolvency pressures were real, but whether those pressures excused the employer from consulting with her before deciding that her employment would end.
Allied Auto Parts dismissed Mr Mon by text message and required him to work out two weeks' notice. The employer later relied on concerns about working from home and other matters, but no proper disciplinary or dismissal process had been carried out.
Ms Bell challenged the disestablishment of her role at Hubergroup, arguing that the redundancy lacked a genuine business basis and that she was given an inadequate opportunity to consult on a proposal assembled in haste.
Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.
Ms Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.
Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.
KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.
PowerNet proposed to disestablish Ms Pink's occupational-health role and replace the service model, but the ERA scrutinised whether the proposal genuinely reflected her whole role, the asserted flexibility rationale and the lack of supporting costings.
