ClickCease

Cameron Wong was told to pack his belongings and leave after a workplace confrontation. The employer did not attend the ERA investigation. The Authority found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $5,355 holiday entitlements, $2,800 notice, $12,242 lost wages and $17,500 compensation.


Cameron Wong v Obers Brothers Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2025] NZERA 713

Painter Cameron Wong said he was confronted at work, told to pack his belongings and leave, and later received only part of his final pay. Obers Brothers Construction Limited did not participate in the Authority's investigation. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and made awards for unpaid holiday entitlements, notice, lost wages and hurt and humiliation.

At a glance

  • Authority member: Geoff O'Sullivan
  • Investigation: 8 July 2025 by audiovisual link
  • Determination: 7 November 2025
  • Outcome: unjustified dismissal
  • Total ordered: $37,897
  • Costs: reserved

What happened

Mr Wong had worked as a painter for just over eleven months. He said he repeatedly asked for a written employment agreement but was not provided one. On 5 August 2024, following a dispute about a comment he had allegedly made to a builder, he was told to leave and pack his belongings. He later submitted a resignation letter because he believed that was necessary to protect his notice entitlement.

The Authority accepted Mr Wong's evidence, including evidence from supporting witnesses. The employer did not attend the investigation meeting or otherwise justify its actions. The Authority therefore found that Mr Wong had been unjustifiably dismissed.

Orders

  • Unpaid holiday entitlements: $5,355
  • Two weeks' notice: $2,800
  • Lost wages: $12,242
  • Compensation: $17,500 for humiliation, injury to feelings and loss of dignity
Practical point: an employee's later use of the word "resignation" does not necessarily determine what happened if the employer had already ended the employment relationship in substance. The surrounding communications and conduct matter.

Read the determination

Open [2025] NZERA 713 (PDF)


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz. This summary is general information, not legal advice.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a predetermined redundancy and later alleged serious misconduct without a fair process. The ERA upheld dismissal and disadvantage grievances and ordered more than $180,000 before interest, with findings against the director personally.

Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Browse topics