How disagreement over a changing role led to a grievance claim

Published 14 March 2025 | 2 min read

When an employee disagrees with changes to their role, can an employer lawfully dismiss them?

This question often puts New Zealand businesses in a difficult position. Employers may need to alter job requirements to meet operational needs—but when an employee refuses to comply, things get complicated.

The challenge lies in balancing business needs with legal obligations. If you get it wrong, you risk facing claims of unjustifiable dismissal or discrimination. If you get it right, you maintain a fair and lawful workplace while meeting your operational goals.

When job changes create disputes

A recent case before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) highlighted this dilemma. A long-serving employee was dismissed after refusing to perform new job duties due to a medical condition.

The worker argued that the employer unfairly altered his role and failed to consider his health concerns. Meanwhile, the employer claimed the changes were necessary, and the worker's refusal to comply justified the dismissal.

The case raises a critical question for employers: When do job changes become a legitimate reason for dismissal, and what processes must you follow to stay on the right side of the law?

The tension between flexibility and fairness

In this case, the worker had been employed since 2008. After a major organisational restructuring in 2017, the employer introduced new job expectations.

By 2022, the worker's role required handling inbound customer calls—a task that aggravated his medical condition. Despite offering accommodations, the employer insisted that answering calls was a core requirement.

When the worker refused to comply and rejected further support, the employer terminated his employment on medical grounds. The ERA had to decide whether this dismissal was lawful and fair.

ERA's decision (and why it matters)

The ERA's findings provide crucial lessons for employers navigating workplace changes:

• Job descriptions matter: The worker's position explicitly required providing customer service across various channels, including phone calls.
• Consultation is critical: The employer had engaged in ongoing discussions and offered accommodations to address the worker's medical condition.
• Reasonable process: The ERA found that the employer followed a fair process, including seeking medical assessments and offering adjustments to duties.
• Genuine business reasons: The employer proved that handling calls was a core requirement and that other employees would face similar consequences if they could not meet job expectations.
• Good faith obligations: The employer acted in good faith by consulting the worker, providing medical support, and considering alternative duties.

Ultimately, the ERA determined the employer had acted reasonably and that the dismissal was justified.

What this means for NZ employers

When altering an employee's role, employers must tread carefully. You need clear job descriptions, genuine business reasons, and a fair consultation process. If an employee cannot meet the revised expectations, dismissal may be lawful—but only if you follow the right steps.

Always document your process, communicate openly with affected employees, and seek expert advice when necessary. A well-managed change process not only protects your business but also proves your commitment to fairness and legal compliance.

Note: This information is based on official details from Employment New Zealand and is subject to change. Always refer to the latest guidelines for the most accurate information. Visit Employment New Zealand here.