ClickCease

Results for redundancy consultation

Showing 17-24 of 60 results
Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Point Limited made estimator Jeanette Go redundant after a genuine downturn in estimation work, but did not disclose its selection criteria, interview the other estimators or properly engage with her reduced-hours alternative before preparing the termination outcome.

Matched passage: The letter confirmed the restructure was to proceed and that Ms Go's role would be disestablished.
Stephanie Martin v SAS Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 226 - genuine restructure but consultation and redeployment failures

SAS Builders made Stephanie Martin redundant during a 2024 restructure. The central issues were whether the commercial restructure was genuine, whether the consultation was fair, and whether she should have been considered for a new role created in the business.

Matched passage: For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
Sasha Lee v JNJ Management Limited and National Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 309 - redundancy unjustified, duties removed without consultation, wage arrears and holiday pay ordered

Sasha Lee performed management, HR and operational work across JNJ group businesses before duties were removed and her position was later declared redundant. She challenged both the unilateral reduction of responsibilities and the redundancy process, together with wage and holiday-pay issues.

Matched passage: The consultation material did not discuss alternatives to redundancy, other possible cost savings, or why other positions were not also being considered for redundancy if the profit decrease was as significant as JNJ claimed.
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: The redundancy letter refers to a service review but The Authority accepted Ms Sutter's evidence that she did not know anything about a service review prior to the 2 May meeting.
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: The critical legal question was not whether Mega could restructure.
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.
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: The restructure proposal Mr Clarke was employed as COO from 27 March 2023.
Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376 - Unjustified dismissal during Covid isolation, redundancy not genuine

Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.

Matched passage: When Tihei later tested positive for Covid-19, the employer then told him his position would have to be made redundant.

Browse topics