Jingkai Wang v Envoco Limited [2025] NZERA 845
The ERA rejected Jingkai Wang's central claim that Envoco Limited had dismissed him. Viewed objectively, the Authority found he resigned. Most of his unjustified-disadvantage allegations also failed, but the employer should have responded to concerns raised in his final email. That limited failure resulted in a $2,000 award reduced by 25% for contribution, leaving $1,500 payable.
At a glance
- Authority member: Matthew Piper
- Investigation: 19 September 2025, Auckland
- Determination: 23 December 2025
- Dismissal claim: failed - the Authority found a resignation
- Bullying / earlier disadvantage claims: failed
- Safe-workplace claim: failed
- Limited disadvantage: failure to respond to final concerns
- Compensation: $2,000 before contribution
- Contribution: 25%
- Final award: $1,500
An ineffective trial clause
Mr Wang started work before receiving and signing his employment agreement. The agreement later signed contained a trial-period clause, but both parties accepted it had no legal effect. The Authority noted that the ineffective clause nevertheless formed part of the context in which the parties behaved near the end of the employment relationship.
Bullying concerns and covert recordings
Mr Wang alleged that the employer failed to respond properly to bullying and unfair-treatment concerns. The Authority considered that the concerns presented to management at the time were relatively minor and were reasonably responded to. It also took an adverse view of the way Mr Wang began secretly recording conversations, finding that this did not support the bona fides of his claimed efforts to resolve matters.
No dismissal
A heated conversation included coarse language from the managing director, but the Authority found the comments were conditional and did not objectively end the employment relationship. Mr Wang's later request for and use of approved sick leave was also inconsistent with the proposition that he had already been dismissed. His email on 10 June 2024 was treated as a resignation.
But the final email still required a response
Even though the email amounted to a resignation, it raised safety concerns and asserted that Mr Wang believed he had been dismissed. The employer's failure to respond while the employment relationship was still live was inconsistent with the duty to be responsive and communicative. The Authority characterised that as a limited unjustified disadvantage.
Contribution
The Authority found blameworthy conduct in Mr Wang's positional and disengaged approach to the relationship. The $2,000 compensatory award was reduced by 25% under s 124 to $1,500.
Read the determination
Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz. This summary is general information, not legal advice.
