ClickCease

Painter Cameron Wong was told to pack his belongings and leave after a workplace confrontation, then received only part of his final entitlements. Obers Brothers Construction, already in liquidation, did not participate in the ERA investigation.

The short answer

The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered $5,355 holiday entitlements, $2,800 notice pay, $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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics