ClickCease

Results for redundancy consultation

Showing 33-40 of 60 results
VAN HEERDEN v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 217 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The first Mr van Heerden knew that his ongoing employment was in jeopardy was when he was told at the meeting on 30 January 2024 that his role had been disestablished and he had been made redundant.
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.
ADO v JOAN FERNIE CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD [2025] NZERA 3 - redundancy found to be a pretext for conduct concerns

ADO was selected for redundancy by the Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board after workplace conduct concerns and an argument had arisen. The ERA examined whether redundancy was genuinely driven by commercial considerations and whether redeployment, including a proposed trial in the Stock Manager role, was fairly considered.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
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.
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.
Glenice Cooper v Success Realty [2025] NZERA 782 - redundancy, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.

Matched passage: For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
UDUMULLAGA v HOPKINS JOINERY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 270 - employer-prepared resignation and redundancy dismissal unjustified

Ms Udumullaga was presented with an employer-prepared resignation letter and was later told her job had already been disestablished. The dispute concerned redundancy, periods when she said she was fit and available to work, unpaid entitlements, and whether the employer's process was genuine and fair.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett resigned from Polygon GY Developments after a course of conduct she said was designed to force her out, in a context also involving a claimed redundancy and unpaid Holidays Act entitlements. The ERA examined the reality of the resignation rather than only its formal label.

Matched passage: Polygon also did not provide the purchaser with Ms Kennett's employment agreement, did not demonstrate that it properly explained the restructure's impact on her, and did not put her concerns or ideas to the purchaser before the consultation meeting took place.

Browse topics