This case highlights that employers are still getting restructuring processes wrong. A failure to genuinely consult and a lack of clear business justification resulted in more than minor procedural flaws — and ultimately proved costly for the company.
Mr Deed was employed as a carpenter by Procraft Construction Ltd from 13 November 2023. On 28 February 2024, the sole director and manager, Mr Farrand, made Mr Deed redundant. Mr Deed subsequently raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
Mr Farrand advised that the position was being disestablished due to the loss of contracts and that redundancy was applied on a “last on, first off” basis, with two weeks’ notice issued in line with company policy.
However, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found the redundancy was not supported by genuine business reasons. Evidence showed the company remained financially viable. In fact, by October 2024 the company had launched a new website, rebranded its vehicles, and hired additional staff.
For a restructure to be procedurally justified, employers must meet good faith obligations — including providing relevant information and meaningful opportunity for feedback before decisions are made.
The Authority identified four key failures:
The Authority found the procedural flaws were more than minor and determined the dismissal was unjustified.
Procraft was ordered to pay:
Getting the process wrong exposes organisations to significant financial and reputational risk.
Business Canterbury is running a Restructuring and Redundancy ‘hot topic’ workshop to assist employers to get these processes right and avoid costly financial mistakes. Refer attached link for more information and how to register on Tuesday 24 March 2026.
For more information and specialist avice in this area, please contact me at hradvice@businesscanterbury.co.nz