ClickCease

Results for redundancy

Showing 1-8 of 71 results
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: ...
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: 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.
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: Rodd Penney was also appointed to the position of CEO on 24 October 2023 and the next day the restructure proposal was communicated to staff.
VAN HEERDEN v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 217 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The first Mr van Heerden knew that his ongoing employment was in jeopardy was when he was told at the meeting on 30 January 2024 that his role had been disestablished and he had been made redundant.

Browse topics