ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 41-48 of 94 results
Deborah Eyles v Bottlers Limited [2026] NZERA 300 - no redundancy process, unexplained stand down and dismissal; $20,000 compensation ordered

Deborah Eyles was stood down from her supervised-contact work and later dismissed in circumstances the employer characterised as redundancy. She challenged both the unexplained removal from work and the absence of any genuine consultation or fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: The agreement also included a redundancy clause.
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: He was given two weeks' notice of termination for redundancy.
Wendy Darrell v Canterbury Vehicle [2026] NZERA 35 - redundancy, unjustified disadvantage and dismissal

Wendy Darrell's dispute with Canterbury Vehicle concerned the ending of her employment and associated employment entitlements. The ERA considered whether the employer's conduct met the justification standard and what compensation or payments were required for the breaches established.

Matched passage: Key themes recorded include: [40] Then in a follow up email at 10:49 am on 26 September 2024 CVC confirmed its dismissal of Ms Darrell by serving a notice of redundancy that terminated her employment with immediate effect and advised that no redundancy payment would be made.
Andrew McFarlane v Stuff Limited [2026] NZERA 623 - redundancy selection and redeployment failures made dismissal unjustified

Stuff had genuine commercial reasons to restructure, but it failed to properly establish that Andrew McFarlane's existing role was surplus before making him compete for a substantially similar role. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified, criticised the contestable selection and redeployment process, and awarded $25,000 compensation plus $30,840.98 gross lost remuneration and holiday pay.

Matched passage: Employees facing a similar process should preserve the old and proposed job descriptions, selection criteria and scores, consultation feedback, vacancy information and any evidence showing that substantially the same work continues after the restructure.
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: A wider restructure had already occurred in 2024, with about 12 employees made redundant across a business employing about 88 people.
Faitala and Vea v Pacific Island Business Development Trust [2026] NZEmpC 53 - disadvantage findings and remedies varied

Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea were made redundant by Pacific Island Business Development Trust during a flawed restructure. Their Employment Court challenge focused on pre-dismissal disadvantage during the process and the proper level of lost-remuneration and compensation remedies.

Matched passage: The Court identified employer actions during the flawed restructuring process which had affected the employees' employment to their disadvantage before the employment ended.
Covid-19 wage subsidy: employer obligations and wage protection risk

How Covid-19 wage-subsidy arrangements interacted with wages, hours, leave and restructuring, and why subsidy support did not itself authorise employers to reduce contractual or statutory entitlements.

Matched passage: The legal issues are usually not about the subsidy itself - they are about what the employer did next: pay cuts, reduced hours, leave, or restructuring decisions.
No Win No Fee Employment Lawyer NZ | Personal Grievance & Dismissal Help

Employee-side no-win-no-fee employment advocacy for suitable personal-grievance, dismissal and redundancy cases, including mediation and ERA representation where the case meets the acceptance criteria.

Matched passage: Unjustified dismissal Employees commonly search for a no win no fee unfair dismissal lawyer after being dismissed for misconduct, performance, medical incapacity, absence, restructuring or another stated reason.

Browse topics