Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation

What the case was about

Mr Wang alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged. The disadvantage allegations included how the employer responded to his concerns about workplace treatment, and a claim that he was not provided with a safe work environment when working with pesticide sprays.

Key issues the ERA decided

• Was Mr Wang unjustifiably disadvantaged in his employment?
• Was Mr Wang unjustifiably dismissed, or did he resign?
• If any remedies were payable, what amount of compensation (if any) was appropriate?
• Should any remedies be reduced for blameworthy conduct contributing to the situation?
• Should either party contribute to the other party's costs?

Outcome in plain English

The practical takeaways

• Resignation vs dismissal is assessed objectively. A heated conversation (even with coarse language) is not necessarily a dismissal. The ERA will look at what was said, what was meant, and what the parties did immediately afterwards.
• Even after a resignation email, you still need to respond. If an employee resigns but also raises safety concerns or alleges dismissal, a fair and reasonable employer should respond promptly and meaningfully.
• Good faith matters. The ERA may reduce remedies if the employee's conduct contributed to the situation (for example, a lack of genuine engagement).
• Keep it professional. "Hard talk" in workplaces creates avoidable risk. It can be evidence in later proceedings even if it does not amount to dismissal.

Orders