ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 17-24 of 71 results
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.
SUTTER v LIVING WATERS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 485 - predetermined redundancy; compensation and lost wages

Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.

Matched passage: In summary, A year into her employment, Living Waters invited Ms Sutter to a catch up meeting and told her that her Practice Nurse role was being made redundant.
KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455 - redundancy process materially unfair

KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.

Matched passage: 1 There is no discussion with her or the marketing manager about any change to the redundancy compensation arrangement at this time.
PINK v POWERNET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 374 - redundancy business case not genuine

PowerNet proposed to disestablish Ms Pink's occupational-health role and replace the service model, but the ERA scrutinised whether the proposal genuinely reflected her whole role, the asserted flexibility rationale and the lack of supporting costings.

Matched passage: In summary, Terms of employment relating to redundancy [18] Ms Pink's IEA included the following agreement about what would happen in a redundancy proposal situation.

Browse topics