ClickCease

Results for redundancy selection criteria

Showing 1-8 of 12 results
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: Point accepted there were flaws in its redundancy process.
Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182 - redundancy dismissal unjustified on process; pre-selection and withheld scoring; $8,000 compensation plus three months' pay ordered

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.

Matched passage: The critical legal question was not whether Mega could restructure.
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.
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

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.

Matched passage: The ERA did not reject the restructure as fake.
Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 - Unjustified dismissal, redundancy process failures

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.

Matched passage: Need help with a redundancy or ERA matter?
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: Employees facing a similar process should preserve the old and proposed job descriptions, selection criteria and scores, consultation feedback, vacancy information and any evidence showing that substantially the same work continues after the restructure.
Deborah Eyles v Bottlers Limited [2026] NZERA 300 - no redundancy process, unexplained stand down and dismissal; $20,000 compensation ordered

Deborah Eyles was stood down from her supervised-contact work and later dismissed in circumstances the employer characterised as redundancy. She challenged both the unexplained removal from work and the absence of any genuine consultation or fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: Key point If an employer wants to rely on redundancy, it needs to run a redundancy process before dismissal.
CAMERON ROWETH v MT OUTDOORS LIMITED [2026] NZERA 50 - redundancy dismissal held unjustified due to no consultation on selection; $15,000 compensation, $5,400 lost remuneration, $1,800 notice

Mt Outdoors terminated seasonal retail worker Cameron Roweth's fixed-term role early when winter trading was weaker than expected. The business had a genuine need to reduce labour costs, but selected him for redundancy without consulting him about the selection decision.

Matched passage: (see [1]-[3], [22]) However, the Authority found the employer had already decided to dismiss Mr Roweth before the 28 June meeting, meaning there was no effective consultation about either the disestablishment decision or (crucially) the selection of Mr Roweth for redundancy.

Browse topics