Cameron Wong v Obers Brothers Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2025] NZERA 713 - Unjustified dismissal, holiday pay and notice ordered
In Cameron Wong v Obers Brothers Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2025] NZERA 713 (Wellington), the ERA found Mr Wong was unjustifiably dismissed after he was sworn at and told to leave the worksite. The employer did not engage in the investigation and later entered liquidation. The ERA ordered $5,355 holiday entitlements, $2,800 two weeks notice, $12,242 lost wages, and $17,500 compensation (total $37,897), payable within 28 days.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Cameron Wong v Obers Brothers Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2025] NZERA 713 (Wellington, Member Geoff O'Sullivan, determination dated 7 November 2025).
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 713
- Registry: Wellington
- Member: Geoff O'Sullivan
- Investigation meeting: 8 July 2025 (audiovisual link)
- Determination date: 7 November 2025
- Applicant: Cameron Wong (painter)
- Respondent: Obers Brothers Construction Limited (in liquidation)
- Representation: Hayley Johnson, advocate for the applicant; no appearance for the respondent
Liquidation point (why the decision was delayed)
The determination notes that after the investigation meeting the respondent company was placed in liquidation. The Authority did not issue its determination until the liquidator confirmed (on 6 November 2025) that the matter could proceed.
Background and what happened
Mr Wong is a painter with about 17 years in the industry. He said he worked for Obers for just over 11 months and, despite asking, the company did not provide him with a written employment agreement.
The dismissal event (5 August 2024)
Mr Wong said Jason Obers confronted him at work about an alleged comment he had made to a builder. Mr Wong's evidence was that he was told (words to the effect):
- "Leave, pack your belongings, I'll pay you out, and I have other painters ready to start tomorrow."
Mr Wong said he felt intimidated and began packing his tools. Before leaving, he asked whether he could work out his notice period, because he believed he needed to give notice to be paid his notice entitlement. He said the response was (words to the effect):
Final pay concerns
- 7 August 2024: Mr Wong received a final pay that was for 38 hours only.
- 8 August 2024: Mr Wong submitted a resignation letter and a medical certificate stating he was unfit for work (because he believed he needed to do this to obtain entitlements).
- 14 August 2024: A further payslip showed annual leave accrued (153 hours) but pay shown as zero.
The determination records that Mr Wong had not received his final wages, annual holiday leave entitlement, outstanding holiday pay, or notice.
Why the ERA found an unjustified dismissal
The respondent did not attend the investigation meeting and did not engage in the Authority's investigation, despite being aware of the proceedings. The Member adjourned briefly at the start in case anyone was delayed, then proceeded in the respondent's absence.
With no evidence from the employer to justify its actions, the ERA accepted the applicant's evidence and found Mr Wong was unjustifiably dismissed. The Authority then moved to remedies.
Remedies awarded
Summary of orders
| Order | Amount (gross) |
|---|---|
| Unpaid holiday entitlements (153 hours at $35/hour) | $5,355.00 |
| Two weeks notice | $2,800.00 |
| Lost wages (13 weeks, based on earnings vs invoices) | $12,242.00 |
| Compensation for humiliation, injury to feelings, and loss of dignity | $17,500.00 |
| Total | $37,897.00 |
Other points
- Emotional impact: The ERA accepted evidence of significant emotional impact, including evidence from Mr Wong's mother and a colleague. The Authority considered an appropriate compensation award was $17,500 (even though $30,000 was claimed).
- Penalties: Penalties were not pursued (no evidence offered).
- Costs: Costs were reserved. If costs are not agreed, the applicant may file a costs memorandum within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after service.
Practical takeaways
For employers
- Do not dismiss in the heat of the moment. Swearing and telling someone to leave is very likely to be treated as dismissal.
- If you allege misconduct or performance issues, you must run a fair process and be able to justify the decision.
- Final pay matters: holiday pay and notice should be calculated and paid correctly, with wage/time records available.
For employees
- Write down the exact words used and who was present. Witness evidence can be decisive.
- Keep payslips, rosters, and messages. Final pay issues often become part of the claim.
- Mitigation is relevant: looking for work promptly can support lost wage claims.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Related articles
Browse all articles![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments
A practical summary of Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18. The ERA found constructive dismissal and ordered compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday arrears, and repayment of an unlawful premium payment.
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd t/a Kafal Indian Cuisine [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal and wage arrears
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd [2026] NZERA 13. The Authority upheld unjustified dismissal, ordered compensation and lost wages (reduced for contributory conduct), and ordered wage and public holiday arrears with interest.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies
Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered lost wages ($6,656) and compensation ($15,000).
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation
In Jingkai Wang v E|nvoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845, the ERA found the employee was not dismissed and had resigned. A limited unjustified disadvantage was established due to the employer's failure to respond to concerns raised in the resignation email. The ERA awarded $1,500 compensation (after a 25% reduction for blameworthy conduct). Costs were reserved.