ClickCease

Results for genuine redundancy

Showing 17-24 of 72 results
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: 1 [3] Hubergroup denies the allegations and asserts that the dismissal was the result of a genuine redundancy, following a fair and reasonable process.
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: Why this case matters A "genuine redundancy" does not excuse a poor or rushed process.
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.
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.
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.
Gregory Brian Clarke v Omni Health Limited [2026] NZERA 265 - redundancy substantively justified, but process unfair; $10,000 compensation for disadvantage

Gregory Clarke was made redundant from Omni Health during financial and organisational change. The ERA accepted the commercial rationale and found no suitable redeployment role, but examined whether a series of consultation and process defects caused a separate unjustified disadvantage even though the redundancy itself was genuine.

Matched passage: Substantive justification: redundancy was genuine Applying s 103A (and redundancy principles), the Authority accepted the redundancy was genuine.
Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.

Matched passage: ... can be meaningful, clearly communicate when a specific position is at risk, provide a genuine chance to comment, and genuinely consider the employee's responses (including redeployment options) before making final decisions. Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified ...
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.

Browse topics