The process seemed thorough but responses came at the wrong time entirely
A company's AI-driven restructure has cost nearly $27,000 after telling a redundant employee she had to apply for alternative roles.
The Employment Relations Authority delivered its decision on January 30, 2026, finding that Landcorp Farming Limited's redundancy process was unjustified despite appearing to tick all the usual boxes.
Aiga Faamanu Roache, known as Nu, had worked as the Accounts Payable Team Leader at Pamu since 2016. After the company invested in automation technology using AI robots to handle manual processing, management proposed a restructure in May 2024. The plan seemed simple enough: eliminate Roache's team leader position, have the three AP officers report directly to the Chief Financial Controller, and create a new Transaction Specialist role to work across both teams.
When Roache returned from annual leave on June 18, 2024, she was called into a meeting where managers presented the proposal through a PowerPoint slide deck. She had until June 24, 2024 to provide feedback. The entire consultation period lasted just six days.
The first serious problem emerged immediately. At that meeting, Roache was told she would need to apply for redeployment to alternative positions. The HR Business Partner later acknowledged hearing "something to that effect being said to Ms Roache during the meeting." Under the employment agreement, suitable alternative positions should have been offered automatically, not through a competitive application process.
The Authority found this mistake was never properly corrected. Even when Roache resigned on July 1, 2024, her email revealed she still believed she had to apply. "While I appreciate suggestions to apply for the Transaction Specialist position, the Accounts Payable Officer role, or the now-vacant Accounts Receivable Team Leader role, I do not believe staying with Pamu is in the best interests of my well being, and the anxiety I am now, for the first time in my life, experiencing."
The Authority questioned why Pamu chose to eliminate the occupied AP Team Leader role when the AR Team Leader position was actually vacant and being covered by someone on a fixed-term contract. The company argued automation had mostly affected the AP team, but the Authority noted there was insufficient explanation about how efficiency gains in processing translated to eliminating a supervisory role rather than a team member position.
The consultation process looked thorough on paper. Roache submitted detailed feedback questioning the rationale and suggesting the company move immediately to a single transaction processing team. But the Authority identified a fatal flaw: Pamu's responses to her feedback were only provided after the decision had already been made. The decision was communicated via email on June 26, 2024 while Roache was on sick leave, with responses to her concerns attached to the same message.
Member Sarah Kennedy-Martin wrote that consultation "involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided on, listening to what others have to say, considering their response, and then deciding what will be done."
The case also revealed ongoing tensions between Roache and her manager Peter Franklin. The Authority noted that human resources had been involved in supporting their working relationship on multiple occasions, contradicting claims these were just normal workplace dynamics.
Roache received three months' salary as a goodwill payment when she left. Pamu argued this should reduce any remedies, but the Authority disagreed, finding it was voluntary and unsolicited.
The Authority ordered Pamu to pay $18,000 for humiliation and injury to feelings, plus $8,900.15 in lost wages covering the seven weeks before Roache found new employment.
The implications are clear. Automation-driven restructures require the same rigorous justification as any other organizational change. The language used around redeployment matters tremendously. Telling employees they can "apply" for alternative positions when contracts require those positions be offered could breach obligations, even with later attempts to clarify. And when only one person's role is being eliminated, genuine consultation means more than updating presentation slides with responses after decisions are already locked in.
