ClickCease

Results for genuine redundancy

Showing 1-8 of 59 results
John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins [2026] NZERA 164 - genuine redundancy but rushed consultation made dismissal unjustified

Regional sales manager John Pio was made redundant after Strautmann Hopkins lost the distribution licence underpinning its business. The redundancy had a genuine commercial basis, but Pio was given little warning, very limited time to seek advice and no meaningful opportunity to explore transfer or redeployment.

Matched passage: In considering a dismissal for redundancy the Authority must apply the test for justification set out at section 103A of the Act.
STILLMAN v BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 239 - genuine redundancy but consultation unfair

Brother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.

Matched passage: The determination records that In the context of a dismissal for redundancy, it is settled law that if an employer can show the redundancy was genuine and enacted in a procedurally fair manner, then the s 103A test may well be satisfied.
Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall was made redundant from Consultex's Northland asbestos and mould work after a downturn that gave the employer a genuine reason to reduce headcount. The dispute centred on whether Consultex complied with its good-faith information and consultation obligations before choosing and implementing the redundancy.

Matched passage: Finding: unjustified dismissal despite genuine redundancy The Authority held that Consultex had a genuine commercial reason to restructure but failed to comply with the good-faith consultation requirements in section 4(1A) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate

Ms Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.

Matched passage: Later, Section 103A(3)(a) of the Act required Lanquan to (quoted wording omitted) the circumstances that resulted in the disestablishment of Ms Wei's position and her redundancy.
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: Why this case matters This determination is a good example of the distinction between a genuine redundancy and a justified dismissal.
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: If you are relying on redundancy, document the genuine business rationale and consult before deciding.
Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was made redundant by OH and N Contracting as forestry work wound down and no replacement work had been secured. The ERA accepted that business pressure was genuine but examined whether the employer consulted before deciding the redundancy and complied with notice and record obligations.

Matched passage: That finding mattered because the case was not decided on the basis that the redundancy was fake.
XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502 - genuine redundancy but process unjustified

Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that Ms Xu was dismissed from her employment with Abhyudaya by reason of redundancy.

Browse topics