ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 1-8 of 94 results
Redundancy

Redundancy

Topic
38 articles

Redundancy is defined at common law as a situation where an employee's position becomes surplus to the needs of the employer. A redundancy is treated by the Courts as a dismissal, therefore it must be genuine and carried out in a procedurally fair way.

Continue
Unjustified redundancy: when redundancy becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance

When a genuine business restructure can still result in an unjustified redundancy dismissal because consultation, disclosure, selection, redeployment or the final decision was not fair and reasonable.

Matched passage: Redundancy can still be an unfair dismissal An employer must act as a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time dismissal or action occurred and an employer must act in good faith.
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: ... date: 1 May 2026 Employment: Chief Operating Officer (COO), started 27 March 2023 Restructure proposal issued: 31 January 2024 Decision communicated: 21 March 2024 (role disestablished, effective 21 June 2024) Core issues: redundancy justification (substance and ...
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.
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: Legal framework Redundancy dismissals are assessed under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether the employer's actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806 - redundancy consultation called a 'charade'; unjustified dismissal; $47,692.30 awarded

KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.

Matched passage: ... 2025 Determination date: 12 December 2025 Respondent: ZIB Digital Limited (ZIB) Outcome: redundancy dismissal unjustified; unjustified disadvantage and good faith breach findings; penalty declined; misrepresentation claims unsuccessful; costs reserved Remedies ordered: ...
BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561 - redundancy business case and consultation both deficient

Ms Bell challenged the disestablishment of her role at Hubergroup, arguing that the redundancy lacked a genuine business basis and that she was given an inadequate opportunity to consult on a proposal assembled in haste.

Matched passage: ... to herself once she had written her response to Hubergroup in relation to the proposed redundancy. Key case markers This determination comes from the Wellington registry. The parties are BELL (employee) and HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (employer). Hearing date noted: ...

Browse topics