ClickCease

Results for genuine redundancy

Showing 49-56 of 59 results
TRAIL v VEOLIA WATER SERVICES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 353 - dismissal for workplace outbursts still unjustified

Veolia dismissed Mr Trail after a series of workplace outbursts, having previously issued a warning and then relied on later complaints. The ERA examined whether the proven conduct and disciplinary history could reasonably justify dismissal.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
CHENG v THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 167 - personal grievance partly successful; compensation and lost wages

Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
HILL v TAMAKI LABOUR HIRE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 100 - personal grievance partly successful; remedies limited to proven breaches

Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.

Matched passage: The letter stated it appeared as a result of the 3 March 2023 meeting, Ms Hill was being made redundant and was suspended.
PIACUN v COOPER NO 1 LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 32 - business sale did not avoid notice; dismissal unjustified

Cooper No 1 sold its business and told Ms Piacun her employment was ending, without paying a notice period. The ERA considered whether the sale itself ended employment or whether Cooper had taken the initiative to terminate her contract.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
CALLEN v ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 165 - dismissal grievance allowed; compensation and lost wages awarded

Mr Callen's unjustified-dismissal grievance against Alaron Products was not formally filed in the Authority until after the ordinary 90-day raising period had become an issue. The case addressed whether the grievance could nevertheless proceed and what remedies followed from the dismissal claim.

Matched passage: Further and crucially, a worker must be afforded an opportunity to comment on any redundancy proposal prior to a decision being finalised.
KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132 - dismissal unjustified; investigation disadvantages justified

Fire and Emergency New Zealand investigated complaints involving firefighter Russell Kinzett and two other firefighters before summarily dismissing him. Mr Kinzett challenged both the investigation process and the dismissal, and was later interim-reinstated.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
PAYNE and Ors v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and Anor [2025] NZERA 79 - Preliminary strike-out (settlement/estoppel) issues

A group of MPI employees sought to pursue claims arising from roster and restructure changes despite earlier litigation and a mediated settlement. The preliminary determination addressed whether the claims were barred by the certified settlement, estoppel or the Authority's jurisdiction.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Matched passage: There was no disciplinary or redundancy process, no consultation, no opportunity to respond and no fair notice of an employment decision.

Browse topics