Most employers think about position descriptions when they’re hiring someone.

Far fewer think about them when managing performance concerns, undertaking a restructure, responding to a personal grievance, or defending a claim in the Employment Relations Authority.

However, position descriptions can become some of the most important documents in an employment dispute.

Outdated, poorly drafted, or poorly maintained position descriptions can influence whether a dismissal is justified, whether a redundancy is genuine, and whether changes to a role go beyond what an employer is entitled to require.

For that reason, position descriptions should be viewed as much more than a recruitment tool.

What should a position description include?

Before advertising a role, engaging a recruiter, or approaching potential candidates, employers should take the time to clearly define what the role involves and what success looks like.

When preparing a position description, consider:

• • The needs of the business

• • The purpose of the role

• • The requirements for success in the role

• • Key responsibilities and duties

• • Reporting lines and working relationships

• • Required skills, qualifications and experience

• • The location of work, including any remote or hybrid arrangements

• • Any leadership, financial, or decision-making responsibilities

A well-drafted position description helps employees understand what is expected of them and how their role contributes to the wider organisation. It also provides managers with a framework for accountability, performance management, and decision-making.

More than just recruitment

Yes, position descriptions are a key component of the recruitment process, but beyond that, they offer many other useful benefits.

Drafted well and revisited often, position descriptions can be valuable throughout the employment relationship by helping to:

• • Set goals and measure performance

• • Guide performance reviews and feedback discussions

• • Identify training and development needs

• • Support remuneration decisions

• • Promote consistency and fairness across similar roles

• • Clarify responsibilities when organisational changes occur

When employees understand their role and responsibilities, workplace expectations are generally clearer and easier to manage.

What happens when things change?

Businesses evolve, and roles often evolve with them.

New responsibilities are added. Reporting lines change. Teams grow or shrink. Technology alters the way work is performed.

The challenge arises when the reality of a role changes, but the position description does not.

Position descriptions are often important pieces of evidence in Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court proceedings involving unjustified dismissal, unjustified disadvantage, restructures, redundancies, and disputes about changes to duties and responsibilities.

The following cases demonstrate why.

What the cases tell us

Changes to a role should be documented

In Hayward v Tairawhiti Polytechnic [2005] EMC Auckland AC43/05, the employee’s managerial responsibilities changed over time, but her position description was never updated despite requests for this to occur.

The Employment Court found that the employer’s failure to address the consequences of those changes contributed directly to the disadvantage suffered by the employee and the events leading to her dismissal. Ms Hayward was awarded $5,000 for disadvantage and $25,000 for unjustified dismissal.

The case serves as a reminder that where a role evolves, employers should ensure the documentation evolves with it.

Not every change is simply a change to a job description

In Sanson v Auckland Regional Council [1999] 1 ERNZ 708, confirmed on appeal in Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597 (CA), an employee’s management responsibilities were removed during organisational change.

The Court found that the differences between the former position and the proposed position were so substantial that they could not be regarded as mere amendments to a job description. The original position had effectively been disestablished and the employee was being offered a new role.

As a result, Mr Sanson was entitled to redundancy compensation.

The decision highlights that there comes a point where changes to duties and responsibilities are so significant that they create a fundamentally different position.

A new title does not necessarily mean a genuine redundancy

In Rillstone v Product Sourcing International 2000 Ltd [2007] ERA Auckland AA167/07, the Employment Relations Authority undertook a detailed comparison of the employee’s existing and proposed position descriptions.

After analysing the documents line by line, the Authority found that most of the duties and required skills remained substantially the same. The redundancy was therefore found not to be genuine.

The case demonstrates that employers cannot simply rename a role or make minor adjustments to duties where the underlying work continues to exist.

Careful drafting can provide flexibility

In Taranaki District Health Board v Graamans [2013] NZERA Wellington 33, an Emergency Department-specific nursing position description was replaced with a broader nursing position description that would allow the employee to work in other areas of the hospital.

The employee argued that the changes were so significant that a different role had been created.

The Authority disagreed. The position descriptions contained substantially the same core duties, and the employee’s letter of offer stated that she would be based in the Emergency Department rather than employed exclusively as an Emergency Department nurse.

As a result, the employer was entitled to make the change.

The case illustrates how the wording of employment documentation, including position descriptions, can have significant consequences years later.

Practical tips for employers

 

• • Review position descriptions annually with employees to ensure they remain accurate and reflect the work actually being performed.

• • Update position descriptions when responsibilities, reporting lines, or organisational structures change.

• • Do not unilaterally change a position description, as doing so may give rise to a personal grievance for disadvantage.

• • Ensure recruitment advertisements accurately reflect the role being offered.

• • As a matter of best practice, have employees sign their position description before commencing employment and whenever significant updates are made – this applies to internal and external hired.

• • Keep records of updated position descriptions and discussions regarding any changes.

Final thoughts

Position descriptions are often treated as administrative paperwork, or a recruitment tool only.

The cases above demonstrate that they can become critical evidence in performance processes, restructures, redundancy exercises, and personal grievance claims.

Taking the time to get them right, keep them up to date, and ensure they accurately reflect the role being performed can help reduce uncertainty, minimise risk, and place employers in a much stronger position if issues arise later.

Need support? If you would like assistance creating, reviewing, or updating position descriptions, please get in touch with our team. Email admin@cmalaw.co.nz or phone 03 211 0153.

Disclaimer: This update provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.