A failed consultation and a missing board report cost a broadcaster dearly
In a determination issued on 23 February 2026, the Employment Relations Authority ruled that UMA Broadcasting Limited, which operates Radio Waatea, unjustifiably dismissed news editor Adam Gifford after 18 years of service, ordering it to pay more than $43,000 in compensation and lost wages.
The case is a sharp illustration of what happens when a restructure is genuine in intent but deeply flawed in execution.
Gifford had been with the station since 2006. When new general manager Matthew Tukaki moved to merge the station's English and Maori news teams, he emailed all staff on 11 September 2024 advising of his intention to restructure, noting that "any change for employees may include reassignment, partial or full redundancies." Gifford never believed that applied to him. He met with Tukaki, offered ideas about optimising news delivery, and had no indication his specific role was in jeopardy. There were no written records of any of those meetings.
The decision, when it came, came fast. At 3:00pm on 4 October 2024, Tukaki emailed Gifford to say his role would be merged into the existing team. Twenty-five minutes later, Gifford received a formal termination letter. Four minutes after that, an all-staff email announced he was not moving to the new structure.
ERA Member Helen van Druten found that "the presumption that Mr Gifford understood the potential consequences for his position was a misstep by UMA and affected Mr Gifford's ability to comment in any meaningful way on the proposal before him."
There was also the matter of a board report Tukaki had commissioned in August 2024, which laid out the proposed new structure, financial targets, and which programmes would be retired. Gifford never received it. The ERA found he should have, because without it, he had no real basis to engage meaningfully with the consultation process.
Redeployment was equally overlooked. A newly created Content Creator role and a vacant Editor position both existed in the new structure. Neither was raised with Gifford before his termination notice went out.
Perhaps the most striking dimension of the case involved HR advisor Matt McCarten. Brought in by UMA to guide the restructure, McCarten ultimately gave evidence in support of Gifford at the ERA investigation, distancing himself from how the process had unfolded.
The ERA awarded Gifford $19,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation, $24,230.77 in lost wages, KiwiSaver contributions, and interest. UMA was also penalised $1,500 for withholding Gifford's final pay over an unresolved company property dispute, in breach of the Wages Protection Act 1983. The ERA was clear: "it cannot be for employers to make deductions without ensuring the contractual and legislative requirements are met."
For anyone managing a restructure, the ERA's findings set a clear standard. A company-wide email noting that redundancies are "possible" does not substitute for telling an individual their specific role is at risk. Consultation must be documented, genuine, and based on the same information the employer is working from. Redeployment must be explored before notice goes out, not after. And the HR professional guiding the process carries real weight in any legal challenge – as UMA found out, when their own advisor took the stand for the other side.
