Her role still existed - she just could not fill it without the jab
A registered nurse at Waikato Hospital who refused the Covid-19 vaccine and challenged her dismissal has lost on every front.
New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority found on October 9, 2026, that Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora (HNZ) acted fairly and reasonably when it ended the nurse’s employment in late 2021.
The worker had declined the vaccination, saying she wanted to be fully informed about all of the risks first. That put her offside with the Covid-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021, which required health sector workers to receive a first dose by November 15, 2021, and a second by January 1, 2022. HNZ gave notice of termination on November 26, 2021.
Her main argument was that HNZ had not followed change management provisions in the Nursing and Midwifery Multi-Employer Collective Agreement. The mandate, she said, created a staff surplus - triggering options like being reconfirmed in her role or redeployed.
The Authority was not persuaded. A staff surplus only arises “as a result of substantial restructuring,” and restructuring is about positions, not people. The nurse’s role still existed. She just could not fill it.
The consultation trail told a similar story. HNZ sent an implementation process document, invited the worker to meetings, responded to her written feedback, and set out the medical exemption process. She was stood down on paid special leave on November 15, then opted to give written feedback rather than attend a further meeting - advising she would not apply for an exemption after the government amended the criteria.
Could HNZ have applied for a significant service disruption exemption on her behalf? The Authority accepted evidence that those exemptions targeted short-term disruption to essential services, not ongoing individual passes. The nurse’s work could be done by a vaccinated colleague.
Redeployment went nowhere either. Some roles fell outside the amendment order, but HNZ had required vaccination across its entire workforce - reasoning that all hospital staff, regardless of role, may contact vulnerable patients or the public.
Health and safety and good faith claims rounded out the case. Both failed. The amendment order directed employers not to allow unvaccinated affected persons to carry out certain work, so no separate risk assessment was required.
All claims were dismissed. Costs were reserved.
For HR teams still fielding legacy Covid-era grievances, the case is a practical map of what adequate consultation looks like when a government mandate - not a restructure - takes an employee out of their role.
