ClickCease

Results for redundancy compensation

Showing 9-16 of 80 results
CAMERON ROWETH v MT OUTDOORS LIMITED [2026] NZERA 50 - redundancy dismissal held unjustified due to no consultation on selection; $15,000 compensation, $5,400 lost remuneration, $1,800 notice

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.

Matched passage: ... member: Peter van Keulen Investigation meeting: 19 November 2025 in Wanaka Type of case: Redundancy dismissal; justification assessed under s 103A and redundancy consultation principles. Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld (selection for redundancy not justified due to ...
PENNY v FRELLO LIMITED [2025] NZERA 317 - redundancy consultation and redeployment failures

Henry Penny was selected for redundancy from Frello's software-development team after a restructure intended to reduce headcount. He argued resignations had already reduced staff numbers, the selection outcome was predetermined, and consultation and redeployment were not genuine.

Matched passage: Rodd Penney was also appointed to the position of CEO on 24 October 2023 and the next day the restructure proposal was communicated to staff.
Deborah Eyles v Bottlers Limited [2026] NZERA 300 - no redundancy process, unexplained stand down and dismissal; $20,000 compensation ordered

Deborah Eyles was stood down from her supervised-contact work and later dismissed in circumstances the employer characterised as redundancy. She challenged both the unexplained removal from work and the absence of any genuine consultation or fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: The agreement also included a redundancy clause.
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: If her employment ended for redundancy, she was entitled to two weeks' notice but no additional redundancy compensation.
VAN HEERDEN v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 217 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The first Mr van Heerden knew that his ongoing employment was in jeopardy was when he was told at the meeting on 30 January 2024 that his role had been disestablished and he had been made redundant.
Faitala and Vea v Pacific Island Business Development Trust [2026] NZEmpC 53 - disadvantage findings and remedies varied

Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea were made redundant by Pacific Island Business Development Trust during a flawed restructure. Their Employment Court challenge focused on pre-dismissal disadvantage during the process and the proper level of lost-remuneration and compensation remedies.

Matched passage: ... Court change: separate unjustified disadvantage grievances established Mr Faitala compensation: $30,000 Mrs Vea compensation: $45,000 Lost remuneration: six months for Mr Faitala; 12 months for Mrs Vea, subject to stated deductions Penalties: declined What the ...
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: He was given two weeks' notice of termination for redundancy.
BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561 - redundancy business case and consultation both deficient

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.

Matched passage: In summary, 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 good faith, under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Browse topics