ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 17-24 of 94 results
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.
Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182 - redundancy dismissal unjustified on process; pre-selection and withheld scoring; $8,000 compensation plus three months' pay ordered

Gaetan Duvaux was made redundant by Mega after a selection process in which scoring and comparative information were not fully disclosed and the employee argued the outcome had effectively been chosen in advance. The business case itself was not the only issue: the fairness of selection and consultation was central.

Matched passage: That review led to a restructure proposal affecting the technology department.
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Thomas Kenna was made redundant from Anztec after a restructuring that the ERA accepted had a genuine business basis. He challenged alleged predetermination and the employer's failure to proactively disclose information needed to understand and respond to the proposal.

Matched passage: The application set out alleged procedural deficiencies around information sharing during the restructuring process and suggested the decision to make Mr Kenna redundant was due to an ulterior motive.
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: (g) Should Ms Roache be awarded lost wages in light of the redundancy compensation payment she received?
Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited [2025] NZERA 599 - redundancy without consultation despite insolvency

Limei Wang was made redundant by Serenity Float Clinic while the business was in serious financial difficulty. The issue was not whether insolvency pressures were real, but whether those pressures excused the employer from consulting with her before deciding that her employment would end.

Matched passage: Why the redundancy dismissal was unjustified The Authority accepted SFC's underlying reason (business failure and insolvency) may have been genuine.
XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502 - genuine redundancy but process unjustified

Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that Ms Xu was dismissed from her employment with Abhyudaya by reason of redundancy.

Browse topics