No doctor's note, no family nearby, yet the Court still lifted his payout
A former worker's compensation for a flawed redundancy nearly doubled after Judge M S King, on 15 July 2026, lifted the Employment Relations Authority's award.
The Employment Court raised the payout from $8,000 to $15,000, resolving the only live issue in the worker's challenge to an earlier determination that he had been unjustifiably dismissed.
The worker, who had more than five years' service with the employer and had done work that included race meetings and trials, was made redundant after a process the Authority found was "truncated and incomplete." The Authority also concluded the employer fell well short of justifying the proposal that led to the redundancy. Those findings were not challenged.
Representing himself, the worker argued the $8,000 sat too low and sought $40,000. He said the Authority's figure had been influenced by a separate discrimination award he received in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and that compensation should have been calculated cumulatively to reflect multiple breaches.
The Court disagreed on that point, finding the compensation had to relate strictly to the personal grievance upheld by the Authority, as the racial harassment he experienced had already been addressed by the Tribunal.
The employer's position was that the original sum was fair. Counsel argued the worker's evidence was sparse and that the harm should be assessed at a low level, making a band 1 award appropriate. Under cross-examination, counsel questioned whether the worker's evidence had been put to the Authority or included in his brief.
The worker told the Court he had felt isolated as other employees kept their jobs, and that he believed his dismissal was retaliation for raising concerns about racial discrimination, health and safety and employment issues. The Authority had found insufficient evidence that the redundancy was a sham designed to remove him.
He gave no corroborating evidence of his distress. He rarely saw a doctor, leaving no supporting medical records, and, with no family in New Zealand, had chosen not to tell his parents in India about his situation to avoid causing them anxiety.
Applying the banding approach from GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service, Judge King said the Authority had given little explanation of how the $8,000 was reached. Turning to comparable redundancy cases, the Court noted awards of $25,000, $22,500 and $20,000, each following an unjustified redundancy or termination.
Judge King placed the worker's harm in the lower range of band 2, noting that "corroborating evidence is not strictly required to justify a band 2 award" but its absence made the full extent of that harm difficult to assess.
The Court settled on $15,000 as appropriate under s 123(1)(c)(i). Costs were reserved, with the worker entitled to them and memoranda to be filed if they cannot be agreed.
