The redundancy was real, but withheld financials and a silent bullying process sank it
A Christchurch employer was ordered to pay $15,000 after a genuine redundancy was undermined by a botched consultation process and an unresolved bullying complaint.
Thomas Kenna worked as a senior assembly technician at Anztec Limited, a small manufacturer of change machines, carwash entry payment terminals and site management systems. He started in August 2021 and was earning $38.80 per hour when his employment ended. The company had seven staff, including owners Shane and Tracey Grose.
Trouble started in June 2024. Tensions between Kenna and co-workers, particularly Tracey Grose, led the company to bring in an employment consultant. On 11 June 2024, Kenna was handed a letter headed "Formal Notification of Concerns Regarding Workplace Bullying." It accused him of being "hostile and insubordinate" but named no specific incidents. A meeting followed two days later. Kenna said he asked for details and got none. The consultant later confirmed she destroyed her meeting notes.
Shane Grose said the matter was resolved and that Kenna's attitude "changed for the better." Tracey Grose agreed in an email a fortnight later. But no one told Kenna. No outcome letter was sent. The whole thing just went silent.
Five months on, Kenna returned from five weeks of overseas leave on 26 November 2024. Days later, on 29 November 2024, he was handed a proposal to disestablish his role. Anztec said demand for the products he built was falling and his skills did not fit the company's new direction. His job description, though, listed "Prototype assembly/evaluation" and duties around re-designing production methods.
Kenna pushed back. He asked for sales figures and financial statements to understand the rationale. Anztec refused. Shane Grose told the Employment Relations Authority the data was deliberately withheld because he did not trust Kenna to keep it confidential.
A consultation meeting was scheduled for 11 December 2024. Kenna did not attend, saying he had difficulty collecting a support person, and asked the company to proceed without him. By 16 December 2024, Anztec confirmed his redundancy with four weeks' notice on garden leave. Kenna raised a personal grievance on 10 January 2025.
In a determination dated 2 March 2026, Authority Member David Beck found the redundancy was genuine. Sales data eventually produced showed 20 wash entry systems sold in 2025, down from 43 in 2024. The business case stood up.
The process did not. The Authority found Anztec breached its good faith obligations by refusing to share the financial information Kenna needed to respond properly. It called the employer's approach "not a game of 'cat and mouse' with information only being disclosed when sought."
Anztec also ruled out redeployment, reduced hours and job sharing without genuinely exploring them, and never consulted the wider team about the restructure's impact. The Authority noted the unresolved bullying complaint "created a very real perception the restructuring was being pursued for an ulterior motive."
Kenna was awarded $15,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. Lost wages were not granted because the dismissal itself was substantively justified. No reduction was made for contribution.
The case carries clear lessons for those managing people. Conduct processes left without a documented outcome can shadow an employer into future decisions. Financial information must be shared proactively during redundancy consultation, not held back out of distrust. And alternatives to redundancy need genuine consideration, not a cursory dismissal, especially in small teams where every role touches another.
