ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 41-48 of 71 results
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.
Singh v McKee [2026] NZEmpC 146 - Employment Court increased PG compensation from $8,000 to $15,000

The Employment Court left the ERA's unchallenged finding of unjustified redundancy dismissal in place but increased compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings from $8,000 to $15,000. The judgment is useful guidance on evidence of emotional harm and the updated compensation bands.

Matched passage: ... ERA determination: Singh v SJ McKee Ltd [2024] NZERA 179 Underlying dismissal: unjustified redundancy dismissal ERA compensation: $8,000 Employment Court compensation: $15,000 Key issue: quantum and proof of s 123(1)(c)(i) harm Outcome: challenge succeeded on compensation; ...
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Matched passage: A predetermined redundancy Sleaktek proposed making Ms Hull's position redundant.
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Shea's hours at STLand Contracting fell sharply before he was told by phone that there was no more work for him. He also alleged bullying and an unsafe workplace, while the employer had undertaken no redundancy or dismissal consultation.

Matched passage: But it did not run any consultation, workplace-change or redundancy process at all.
FVG v YJN [2026] NZERA 242 - suspension and dismissal unjustified; remedies reduced 30% for contribution

FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.

Matched passage: For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
Emily Grinsted v Bunnings Limited [2026] NZERA 236 - STI bonus claim succeeds; four other disadvantage claims fail

Emily Grinsted, Bunnings' New Zealand People and Culture Manager, brought five unjustified-disadvantage claims while remaining employed. The complaints concerned how criticisms were raised, information and duties, contractual obligations and a short-term incentive bonus.

Matched passage: For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.

Browse topics