An audiometrist was employed by an audiology provider and carried out a number of clinical tasks as a part of her role. In July 2011, a new notice applying to audiology providers under section 88 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 came into force. The employer was of the view that the new notice prevented the audiometrist from being able to carry out the clinical tasks that she had been performing. The employer met with the audiometrist and explained that based on its understanding of the new section 88 notice, the audiometrist could no longer carry out her role. The employer offered the audiometrist an opportunity to discuss redeployment. The audiometrist had a different view of the notice, claiming that the supervision that was in place was sufficient to allow her to carry on in her role. Clarification was sought and the Ministry of Health confirmed that the employer's interpretation of the notice was correct. The audiometrist was dismissed. The Employment Relations Authority found that the employer's decision to disestablish the audiometrist's role could be substantively justified and dismissed the audiometrist's claim. McLeod v National Hearing Care (New Zealand) Ltd [2011] NZERA Wellington 206.