Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for redundancy selection criteria
![Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
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.
Employer redundancy guidance covering genuine business reasons, proposal documents, disclosure, consultation, selection criteria, redeployment and the personal-grievance risks of a predetermined process.
Gaetan Duvaux was made redundant by Mega after a selection process in which scoring and comparative information were not fully disclosed and the employee argued the outcome had effectively been chosen in advance. The business case itself was not the only issue: the fairness of selection and consultation was central.
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.
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.
Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.
Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.
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.
