ClickCease

Results for redeployment

Showing 1-8 of 25 results
LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine commercial reasons to make Luo's role redundant, but the employee was not given a fair opportunity to engage with the proposal or meaningful redeployment possibilities before the decision was made.

Matched passage: The employer must still disclose relevant information, explain what is proposed, genuinely consult before deciding, and properly consider redeployment.
Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.

Matched passage: ... dismissal at Radio Waatea / UMA Broadcasting Limited, including consultation failures, redeployment issues, and a Wages Protection Act penalty for withholding final pay. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page. At a glance Citation: [2026] NZERA 96 ...
Stephanie Martin v SAS Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 226 - genuine restructure but consultation and redeployment failures

SAS Builders made Stephanie Martin redundant during a 2024 restructure. The central issues were whether the commercial restructure was genuine, whether the consultation was fair, and whether she should have been considered for a new role created in the business.

Matched passage: 4 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113 Lost wages SAS's unjustified actions meant Ms Martin was not redeployed to an alternate role it created in the business, when a proper discharge of its obligations would have meant she would have been.
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: The Employment Relations Authority found Stuff failed to first establish that his existing Senior Account Director role was actually surplus, then required him to compete for a new role that substantially reproduced his existing work, and did not actively explore redeployment.
PENNY v FRELLO LIMITED [2025] NZERA 317 - redundancy consultation and redeployment failures

Henry Penny was selected for redundancy from Frello's software-development team after a restructure intended to reduce headcount. He argued resignations had already reduced staff numbers, the selection outcome was predetermined, and consultation and redeployment were not genuine.

Matched passage: After that, This meant there was a failure to genuinely consult with him about the redundancy proposal or any potential redeployment opportunities and therefore his dismissal was not justified.
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: Ultimately, The Authority found that The Platform failed to appropriately consider redeployment opportunities and alternatives to dismissal.
KNOX v RECRUIT IT GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 4 - redundancy rationale and consultation failed scrutiny

Recruit IT Group made Mr Knox's consultant role redundant shortly before another staff member was promoted into a consultant position. Mr Knox argued the redundancy rationale, consultation timeframe and claimed lack of redeployment options did not withstand scrutiny.

Matched passage: ... to make Mr Knox's 'Consultant' role redundant a week prior and advised him he could not be redeployed anywhere within the company. The Authority found this comment unfairly and incorrectly deflects the obligation onto Mr Knox, when the obligation lies with the employer to put ...
Gregory Brian Clarke v Omni Health Limited [2026] NZERA 265 - redundancy substantively justified, but process unfair; $10,000 compensation for disadvantage

Gregory Clarke was made redundant from Omni Health during financial and organisational change. The ERA accepted the commercial rationale and found no suitable redeployment role, but examined whether a series of consultation and process defects caused a separate unjustified disadvantage even though the redundancy itself was genuine.

Matched passage: Redeployment An in-house accountant role was one of the proposed new roles.

Browse topics