ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 9-16 of 71 results
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 57 - NDA disadvantage and redundancy dismissal unjustified

The Platform Media made Ms O'Brien redundant after a period of absence and a dispute that also involved a proposed NDA. The ERA examined whether redundancy was the true predominant reason, whether alternatives and redeployment were genuinely considered, and whether the NDA process caused disadvantage.

Matched passage: In summary, She was dismissed from her employment as of 15 June 2023 following the implementation of a restructuring proposal.
KNOX v RECRUIT IT GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 4 - redundancy rationale and consultation failed scrutiny

Recruit IT Group made Mr Knox's consultant role redundant shortly before another staff member was promoted into a consultant position. Mr Knox argued the redundancy rationale, consultation timeframe and claimed lack of redeployment options did not withstand scrutiny.

Matched passage: For reasons above I therefore find that RIT failed in its good faith obligations to genuinely consult Mr Knox under s 4(1A)(c), and that its decision to dismiss Mr Knox for redundancy was unjustified.
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 summary, ADO was given notice of termination on the grounds of redundancy, with his employment to cease on 15 January 2024.
Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376 - Unjustified dismissal during Covid isolation, redundancy not genuine

Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.

Matched passage: When Tihei later tested positive for Covid-19, the employer then told him his position would have to be made redundant.
Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 - Unjustified dismissal, redundancy process failures

Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.

Matched passage: Need help with a redundancy or ERA matter?
Deborah Coley v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 530 - redundancy threat used to force variation of guaranteed hours

Deborah Coley's agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours each week, but Bupa sought to vary that guarantee by averaging hours across a six-week roster and presented redundancy as the alternative if she refused. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning added a second strand to the disadvantage claim.

Matched passage: Its subsequent correspondence stated that if she did not accept the proposed role, it saw no alternative but to place her on notice of redundancy.
Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

After more than nine years with Rooney Earthmoving, Carol Chesmar was selected for redundancy amid genuine work and financial pressure. The employer withheld information later relied on to justify the decision, did not consult about removing her from a major project and had effectively decided her role would go before consultation began.

Matched passage: A genuine redundancy still requires a fair process: the Authority accepted this was not personal targeting, a sham redundancy, or disciplinary action disguised as redundancy.
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: pdf"; } Anna Murgatroyd v Xero (NZ) Limited [2026] NZERA 305 This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination is a useful redundancy case for both employees and employers.

Browse topics