Workplace Rights Archives

Navigating redundancy

April 28, 2026

Employment Law, Human Resources, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation, Workplace Rights

Understanding the legal process for employers

Redundancy refers to a situation where an employee’s position is deemed superfluous to an employer’s needs. Understandably, a redundancy proposal can bring stress and uncertainty to those affected. Unfortunately, it is a term that many New Zealanders may be familiar with.

We provide a summary of the required process, and obligations by you, as an employer, in proposing a potential redundancy in your organisation.

Lawful redundancy

For a redundancy to be lawful, it must be both justified and carried out through a fair process. A redundancy is justified only where there is a genuine commercial reason for it; redundancy cannot be used as a means to dismiss a poor performing employee or as an alternative to a disciplinary process for misconduct.

‘Genuine commercial reasons’ may include a downturn in work/revenue, declining financial performance, organisational restructuring, or the merger or acquisition of a business. Courts are increasingly applying scrutiny into the ‘commercial rationale’ for a redundancy.

However, even where a genuine reason exists, the dismissal will not be lawful unless the correct process is followed.

Process

The process that all employers must follow includes:
• Providing your employees with relevant information about the proposed change and the potential impact on their employment if the proposal is adopted
• Consultation with your employees and considering their feedback (and enabling your employees opportunities to seek advice or support within the consultation period)
• Considering alternatives to redundancy, and
• Following any additional procedural requirements specified in the relevant employment agreement or policy documents.

Providing information

The Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out that an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of one or more of his or her employees, is required to provide the affected employees with access to relevant information about the decision.

The term ‘relevant information’ will depend on the specific circumstances. It includes, however, information necessary for employees to understand the rationale for the proposed change and to enable them to provide informed feedback. Your employee is entitled to ask for additional information relevant to your proposal. While an employer is not required to provide confidential information, they must be able to genuinely demonstrate that disclosure would cause actual, unreasonable prejudice, and must show that they have explored alternative options for confidential consultation.

Consultation

You are not only required to provide a potentially affected employee with all relevant information, but you must also ensure there is a genuine opportunity for your employee to comment on that information before any decision is made. This includes providing sufficient time to provide feedback.

You must approach this process with an open mind and genuinely consider any feedback received before deciding whether to proceed with the proposed change. Without genuine consultation, the redundancy may be deemed a pre-determined outcome, and a breach of your obligation as their employer to act in good faith.

Selection criteria

In circumstances where you are reducing a number of same/similar roles, a fair and reasonable selection process must be followed to decide which of your employees will be appointed to the remaining roles. Clear and relevant selection criteria should be provided to your employees in advance, and their feedback sought. This includes providing details as to how that criteria will be assessed and weighed.

Redeployment

If a role is disestablished, you have an obligation to consider redeployment opportunities within your organisation for any of your affected employees. The affected employee/s continuing employment must be considered before a new or vacant role is advertised externally. Redeployment must be considered for an affected employee, even if some (reasonable) training or upskilling may be required.

Your obligation to consider all redeployment options, stems from an employer’s statutory requirement of good faith – to be active and constructive in maintaining the employment relationship, including being responsive and communicative.

A challenging time

Proposed redundancy can be a challenging and uncertain time for all; but understanding the legal framework and the required process can help you to navigate this with more confidence.

It is also important to carefully review employment agreements and relevant workplace policies to carefully identify any relevant provisions, including any entitlement to redundancy compensation.

If your organisation is contemplating redundancies, we recommend you talk with us at the outset; this will help you and your employees better understand their rights and obligations.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

Disputes arising out of a first job

February 23, 2026

Dispute Resolution, Employment, Employment Law, Legal Guidance, Personal Grievances, Workplace Rights, Youth Law & Guidance

Sally met up with her sister Samantha and her niece Sarah for coffee at a local café. Sally was excited to see Sarah, as she had recently landed herself her first weekend job working as a waitress in another café in town. Sarah, normally bright and chatty, barely looked up when Sally arrived.

Sally gently asked Sarah how things are going and whether she is enjoying her new job. Sarah quietly answered that she no longer worked at the café. She explained that even though she really enjoyed working at the café, her boss didn’t give her a written employment agreement recording the terms of employment that they agreed on, he never paid her, and he didn’t give her copies of her timesheets when she asked for them. Sarah was too embarrassed to keep asking her boss to give her the documents and to pay her, because he made her feel like she was annoying him and wasting his time. She started feeling really uncomfortable at her job and eventually just stopped going in and she hadn’t heard from her boss since.

Clearly annoyed by Sarah’s work situation, Samantha said that she was going to post about the café and their poor treatment on the local grapevine page.

Sally recalled an article written by Edmonds Judd dealing with defamation and recommended that Samanatha and Sarah rather set up a meeting with her lawyer at Edmonds Judd to get advice on how to resolve the issue.

The team at Edmonds Judd confirmed that Sarah is entitled to all of the basic rights that protect employees, regardless of her age and that this was her first job. Sarah’s boss breached the terms of her employment agreement.

Sarah’s boss was required to:

provide her with a written employment agreement;
pay her according to the agreement which should provide her hourly wage, frequency of pay and method of pay;
keep records in a written form showing for example: time records (including days and hours worked), wage records (including wages paid and how the wages were calculated), and holiday and leave records;
record Sarah’s age in his usual wage and time records; and
provide Sarah with copies of her employment records if requested.

The team at Edmonds Judd explained to Sarah that given her age and limited time working for her employer, she is entitled to the starting-out minimum wage, but that the parties should have recorded her hourly rate and terms of payment in her employment agreement.

Even though a couple of weeks had passed since she left her employment, she had the right to approach her boss about her dispute. Employees must raise their personal grievance with their employer within 90 days of the issue arising or coming to their attention. If she can’t resolve her dispute with him directly, she is entitled to apply to the Employment Relations Authority for assistance to resolve the dispute.

Her lawyer explained that the first step is to give her boss a written letter setting out what her personal grievance is and how she suggests that the parties resolve it. If communicating with her boss directly does not resolve the matter, then she can apply to the Employment Relations Authority.

Kristin O’Toole

Uber drivers are employees – for now

February 2, 2026

Employment Law, Gig Economy, Supreme Court Decisions, Workplace Advice, Workplace Rights

The Supreme Court’s decision is final, but proposed legislation may off an alternative

Uber has an unusual but highly successful business model. It has proved difficult to classify its drivers under employment law, both in New Zealand and in other countries where it operates.

Employees vs independent contractors

The issue is whether Uber’s drivers are employees or independent contractors. The legal status of Uber drivers has significant consequences.

Employees have a range of statutory entitlements, including annual leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, employer contributions to KiwiSaver, minimum wage levels, and the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining with their employer.

Independent contractors have none of these rights. However, they are entitled to offset their expenses against their income for tax purposes. Employees cannot do this.

The New Zealand court system has been grappling with this issue for the last five years. In 2021, the Etū union filed proceedings in the Employment Court seeking a declaration that four Uber drivers were employees. The Employment Court ruled in the union’s favour, declaring that the drivers were employees. Uber appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal declined the appeal. Uber sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court released its decision on 17 November 2025. ^[1]

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court upheld the Employment Court’s decision that Uber drivers are employees, The court applied the well-established test for determining whether workers are employees set down in the Bryson case.^[2]Bryson considered the issue of whether crew members on the ‘Lord of the Rings’ film project were employees or independent contractors. The test derived from this case involves considering the intention of the parties (how they describe their arrangement), the degree of control the company has over the worker, the extent to which the worker is integrated into the company’s business and whether the worker can realistically be said to have their own business.

Uber’s contractual documentation avoids the terms employee and independent contractor altogether. Uber claimed that it merely provided a service to drivers and riders by matching them through its app. The Supreme Court found that this documentation did not reflect the true position and that, in reality Uber was using its drivers to provide transport services to its customers.

The court found that Uber exerts a high degree of control over its drivers, which suggests they are employees. Uber monitors the location of its drivers while they are using the app. Uber operates a reward system for drivers that strongly encourages them to accept nearly all the trips offered to them. Once a driver accepts a trip, Uber specifies the route they must take and the price for the trip.

The court accepted that drivers are not integrated into Uber’s business in the traditional sense. They do not wear uniforms or have Uber branding on their vehicles. The court found, however that the drivers are integrated into Uber’s business in the sense that they are the ‘face’ of Uber’s business. The drivers are the only individuals that customers have contact with when buying services from Uber.

The court also held that drivers do not, in reality, operate their own businesses. They have no opportunity to generate goodwill through a loyal customer base. They are not provided with customers contact details. They are prohibited from providing services to customers outside the Uber framework. In addition, customers are unable to select a specific driver. The app allocates a driver to them.

The Supreme Court is New Zealand’s highest court; therefore the court’s decision is the final say of the New Zealand courts on this issue. However, there is currently draft legislation before Parliament that, if enacted, will change the law relating to this issue.

The proposed ‘gateway test’

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill includes a proposed ‘gateway test.’

The Bill lists five criteria for the gateway test. If a worker’s contract meets all five criteria, then they will be deemed to be an independent contractor, and they will be unable to take legal action to be treated as an employee.

However, if the contract does not meet all five prerequisites, then their status may be decided by the courts using the tests applied in the Uber case.

The five elements of the proposed gateway test are currently:

The contract defines the worker as an ‘independent contractor’
The worker may work for other parties (except while working for the other party to the contract)
The worker is not required to work set hours, or may subcontract their work to others
The contract does not end if the worker refuses additional work, and
The worker had the opportunity to take independent legal advice before signing the contract.

The Bill passed the select committee stage at the end of last year and has returned to Parliament for its second reading.

It is unknown when the Bill will become law, as this will depend on how the government chooses to prioritise the legislation currently before Parliament. However, when the Bill is passed, it will enable companies to be certain that their workers are independent contractors, provided their agreements with their workers meet the requirements of the gateway test.

In the meantime, however the test for whether someone is an employee or a contractor is well established. If you need some help with sorting out your current work situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

^[1] Rasier Operations BV & Ors v Etū Inc & Anor [2025] NZSC 162.

^[2 ^] Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026 Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

Workplace Rights