ClickCease

Results for redundancy selection criteria

Showing 9-16 of 21 results
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: Key point If an employer wants to rely on redundancy, it needs to run a redundancy process before dismissal.
Redundancy

Redundancy

Topic
38 articles

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.

Continue
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: (see [1]-[3], [22]) However, the Authority found the employer had already decided to dismiss Mr Roweth before the 28 June meeting, meaning there was no effective consultation about either the disestablishment decision or (crucially) the selection of Mr Roweth for 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: Here, the Miro board was suspicious and unsatisfactory, but the ERA was not prepared to infer a sham redundancy without audit logs or a closer match between the early board and the final restructure.
Employment Law Help for Employers NZ | Staff Disputes, PGs and ERA Claims

Employer-side help for personal grievances, disciplinary problems, redundancy, mediation and ERA claims, with an emphasis on fixing process risks early and preserving evidence before positions harden.

Matched passage: Redundancy and restructuring: reviewing the business case, proposal letters, consultation process, selection criteria, redeployment, and final decision letters.
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.
Employment Law Advice for Employers
20 articles

Employer employment law help for Personal Grievance responses, disciplinary process, redundancy, MBIE mediation, ERA claims, settlement strategy and Employment Court risk.

Continue

Browse topics