Restructure Done Well: Case Law Development

Getting Redeployment Right During a Restructure 

A recent case, Anderson v New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi [[2025] NZERA 819], provides a useful example of how to properly consider redeployment options and employee feedback during a restructure. The case followed an employee raising a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage.

Background

Mr Anderson commenced employment with New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) on 28 April 2015. He was appointed Portfolio Manager for the central North Island on 11 January 2021.

In 2023, NZTA reviewed the role, which ultimately led to it being disestablished. Mr Anderson raised a claim for unjustified disadvantage.

His employment agreement stated that he would not be eligible for redundancy compensation if he was offered redeployment into an alternative position on substantially the same terms and conditions of employment.

In late 2023, NZTA formed the view that the Portfolio Manager role needed to be updated based on feedback from both the PM team and the staff they managed. While the role primarily involved liaising with external stakeholders, it had evolved to include significant people management responsibilities. This was not part of the original intent of the role.

NZTA decided to proceed with a restructure to realign the position with its intended purpose. A formal process was confirmed in November 2024, and Mr Anderson was automatically redeployed into one of the revised Portfolio Manager roles.

Mr Anderson advised NZTA that he did not wish to accept the revised role and instead sought redundancy. He argued that the removal of people management responsibilities meant the new role was not substantially similar to his existing position.

NZTA then offered a further revised role. This included oversight of a permitting manager and a permitting project manager, both located in different regions, while maintaining the same remuneration and benefits. Mr Anderson rejected this offer.

Although there were plans to reallocate these reporting lines, the current Portfolio Manager had not agreed to transfer them. The geographic spread of the roles also remained a concern for Mr Anderson. He ultimately resigned on 17 January 2025.

Findings

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) agreed with NZTA’s position. It found that the removal of people management responsibilities did not substantially change the nature of the role.

Importantly, Mr Anderson had opportunities to provide feedback on this aspect during the consultation process but chose not to raise concerns at that stage.

Mr Anderson argued that the redeployment offer deprived him of the opportunity to receive redundancy compensation. The ERA did not accept this. It found that NZTA had made a genuine and formal redeployment offer.

While managing staff across different locations could present practical challenges, the ERA noted that such arrangements were not uncommon within NZTA.

The Authority also found that NZTA had taken reasonable steps to address Mr Anderson’s concerns by including some people management responsibilities in the revised offer. Overall, the offer was considered to be on substantially the same terms and conditions of employment and was reasonable in the circumstances.

Decision

The ERA found that Mr Anderson had not been unjustifiably disadvantaged.

Penalties

No penalties were awarded.

Key Takeaways

• Employers should actively consider and respond to employee feedback during a restructure process.
• Redeployment must be genuinely explored and offered as a viable alternative to redundancy.
• Employees are not entitled to redundancy compensation if they decline a reasonable redeployment offer on substantially the same terms and conditions of employment.

And Remember...

Restructures can be complex, and getting the detail right matters. If you need support with planning, consultation, or redeployment obligations, our team is available to provide clear, practical advice. Get in touch to discuss your situation.