ClickCease

Results for redundancy compensation

Showing 17-24 of 67 results
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: I am also satisfied that for the duration of the relevant periods Ms O'Brien received income from other work that was at least [79] The Authority found that Ms O'Brien did not suffer a loss of income and that she is not entitled to compensation for lost wages.
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: The Authority was satisfied that Mr Knox has suffered humiliation and injury to his feelings as a consequence of RIT's unjustified redundancy.
John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins [2026] NZERA 164 - genuine redundancy but rushed consultation made dismissal unjustified

Regional sales manager John Pio was made redundant after Strautmann Hopkins lost the distribution licence underpinning its business. The redundancy had a genuine commercial basis, but Pio was given little warning, very limited time to seek advice and no meaningful opportunity to explore transfer or redeployment.

Matched passage: Key findings and reasoning John Pio was employed by Strautmann Hopkins Limited (SHL) from 1 March 2020 as a regional sales manager until his employment ended by way of redundancy on 26 April 2023.
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.
WILLIAMS v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 215 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr Williams was told by email on 17 March 2024 that he had been made redundant immediately. He had not previously been told his job was in jeopardy, no supporting information accompanied the decision, and there had been no genuine consultation before the outcome was reached.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The first that Mr Williams knew about his ongoing employment being in jeopardy was when he received Mr Corin's email on 17 March 2024 that advised him he had been made redundant.
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: Bupa was ordered to pay $15,000 compensation and $4,000 in penalties.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate

Ms Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.

Matched passage: Section 103A(3)(a) of the Act required Lanquan to (quoted wording omitted) the circumstances that resulted in the disestablishment of Ms Wei's position and her redundancy.
STILLMAN v BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 239 - genuine redundancy but consultation unfair

Brother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.

Matched passage: After that, This determination resolves the issue of whether Ms Stillman was unjustifiably dismissed on the basis of a redundancy and should be paid compensation and lost earnings.

Browse topics