Dismissed, made redundant, pushed to resign, dismissed under a 90-day trial or otherwise treated unfairly at work? Start with the issue below, check the time limits, and work from the actual documents and evidence.
![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](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
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.
Robert Tunnicliffe could not perform his ordinary driving duties and Solly's Freight placed him on alternative work while a limited-licence issue was being worked through. The relationship deteriorated over who should progress and pay for the licence application, and Solly's dismissed him on 24 April 2024.
LJB had already resigned and was working out one month's notice when EBD's HR manager called her to a meeting, told her to clear her desk and sent her away before the notice period expired. No allegations or supporting material had been put to her in advance and she had no genuine opportunity to respond.
Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.
Jack Wills worked at Complex Forme without a written agreement and was not paid for 32 hours of work. After he sought clarity about pay and rostering, the employer stopped responding, removed his access and ceased providing work.
Husband-and-wife chefs working at Buoy Café were dismissed after an escalating conflict with new management. The employer did not properly investigate the allegations or give either employee a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding to terminate them.
Modern Transport Engineers had evidence capable of supporting serious-misconduct concerns against Kyle Spencer, while also counterclaiming for unauthorised private work and purchases. However, it stood him down early, relied on undisclosed staff discussions and ran a process carrying signs of predetermination.
Smartrade treated Yifu Jiang's employment as ending under a one-year fixed-term clause, but the agreement did not record genuine reasons satisfying s 66. Mr Jiang was also given no meaningful chance to comment before the employer ended the relationship.
