Redundancy in New Zealand

No statutory severance, real statutory process

The absence of legislated redundancy pay surprises Australian employers in both directions: nothing is owed unless the agreement says so, and many New Zealand agreements are silent. But the process obligations are demanding. The business case must be genuine (a real restructure, not a performance dismissal in a redundancy costume), affected employees must receive the proposal and the information behind it, their feedback must be genuinely considered before any decision, and redeployment must be explored. Failures on any of these fronts convert a lawful restructure into an unjustified dismissal grievance.

What consultation actually requires

Good faith gives the consultation duty its teeth: employees are entitled to the information relevant to the decision and a real opportunity to influence it while options remain open. Announcing outcomes and calling it consultation is the single most common process failure the Employment Relations Authority sees in restructure cases. Selection between affected employees must also run on transparent, applied-as-written criteria.

The trans-Tasman planning difference

An Australian restructure prices in NES redundancy pay scaled by service; a New Zealand restructure prices in notice, untaken leave and whatever the agreements promise, which may be nothing. That asymmetry cuts the other way too: New Zealand's process risk is broader because the personal grievance regime has no small-business carve-outs or earnings thresholds. Same restructure, different risk profile per country, and workforce plans that span both should model them separately.