ClickCease

Results for redeployment

Showing 9-16 of 25 results
John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins [2026] NZERA 164 - genuine redundancy but rushed consultation made dismissal unjustified

Regional sales manager John Pio was made redundant after Strautmann Hopkins lost the distribution licence underpinning its business. The redundancy had a genuine commercial basis, but Pio was given little warning, very limited time to seek advice and no meaningful opportunity to explore transfer or redeployment.

Matched passage: For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

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.

Matched passage: A central practical issue was redeployment.
KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455 - redundancy process materially unfair

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.

Matched passage: Ultimately, Late on 23 February PBRS emails Ms Ku an invitation letter to a final restructure meeting scheduled for 27 February - to discuss the process to date, alternatives to the redundancy and opportunities for redeployment within the business.
ADO v JOAN FERNIE CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD [2025] NZERA 3 - redundancy found to be a pretext for conduct concerns

ADO was selected for redundancy by the Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board after workplace conduct concerns and an argument had arisen. The ERA examined whether redundancy was genuinely driven by commercial considerations and whether redeployment, including a proposed trial in the Stock Manager role, was fairly considered.

Matched passage: In relation to the issue of redeployment, The Authority found that the JFCT has not made out that its actions were those that would have been open to a fair and reasonable employer on all of the circumstances.
Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall was made redundant from Consultex's Northland asbestos and mould work after a downturn that gave the employer a genuine reason to reduce headcount. The dispute centred on whether Consultex complied with its good-faith information and consultation obligations before choosing and implementing the redundancy.

Matched passage: Consultex also did not address redeployment or explain whether Mr Hall's skills could be used elsewhere.
Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett resigned from Polygon GY Developments after a course of conduct she said was designed to force her out, in a context also involving a claimed redundancy and unpaid Holidays Act entitlements. The ERA examined the reality of the resignation rather than only its formal label.

Matched passage: It then terminated her employment by redundancy while the sale of the Bishopdale Subway store was still conditional, without notice, without properly considering redeployment to its other stores, and without supplying relevant restructure information.
Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Point Limited made estimator Jeanette Go redundant after a genuine downturn in estimation work, but did not disclose its selection criteria, interview the other estimators or properly engage with her reduced-hours alternative before preparing the termination outcome.

Matched passage: Redeployment and retraining Redeployment was another flaw.
Anna Murgatroyd v Xero (NZ) Limited [2026] NZERA 305 - redundancy procedurally unfair but no sham; compensation and lost wages ordered

Anna Murgatroyd was selected for redundancy from Xero's education team after a restructure. She alleged the process was predetermined, relying on an earlier Miro board, and also challenged the use of performance-related comments by a selection panel that included her manager.

Matched passage: Redeployment was not handled well enough Ms Murgatroyd argued that Xero failed to properly assist her to find another role and left her to fend for herself.

Browse topics