ClickCease

Mr Chen worked in a construction arrangement where the identity of the employer and the true nature of the relationship were disputed. Evidence at the ERA included inconsistent accounts about when Construst was first mentioned and the parties agreed the amount of lost remuneration if employment was established.

The short answer

The ERA upheld Mr Chen's unjustified-dismissal claim and ordered $20,000 compensation, $5,236.53 lost remuneration and $760 in wage arrears. It also imposed a $1,250 penalty and awarded costs.


CHEN v CONSTRUST LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 20

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 20
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: CHEN v CONSTRUST LIMITED and Anor
  • Authority member: Rachel Larmer
  • Hearing date: 18 and 19 September 2024 (2 days)
  • Determination date: 17 January 2025
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Changes to Mr Dai's evidence Mr Dai's evidence during the investigation meeting materially differed from what he had recorded in his written witness statement dated 11 September 2024. After that, However, during the Authority's investigation meeting, Mr Dai admitted that the first time Construst was referred to was in the WeChat message he sent Mr Chen on 3 August 2023. Later, However, in his verbal evidence during the Authority's investigation meeting Mr Dai accepted that there was no discussion during the 27 July 2023 meeting about the status of the parties' relationship. The determination records that During the Authority's investigation meeting the parties agreed there was no discussion of Construst during the job interview on 27 July 2023. The Authority notes that Mr Dai acknowledged at the investigation meeting that he did not tell Mr Chen during the job interview on 27 July 2023 that he (Mr Dai) was acting as an agent for Construst. Ultimately, Mr Dai's evidence at the investigation meeting about the fact Construst was not mentioned to Mr Chen until the WeChat message dated 3 August 2023 contradicted what he had written in his witness statement, which was prepared by his representative. In the end, During the investigation meeting the parties calculated, and agreed, that if Mr Chen was held to be an employee, then his actual lost remuneration (based on the hours he had worked while employed by Mr Dai) was $5,236.53 gross.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are CHEN (employee) and CONSTRUST LIMITED and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 18 and 19 September 2024 (2 days).
  • Authority member: Rachel Larmer.

Key events described

  • Changes to Mr Dai's evidence Mr Dai's evidence during the investigation meeting materially differed from what he had recorded in his written witness statement dated 11 September 2024.
  • However, during the Authority's investigation meeting, Mr Dai admitted that the first time Construst was referred to was in the WeChat message he sent Mr Chen on 3 August 2023.
  • However, in his verbal evidence during the Authority's investigation meeting Mr Dai accepted that there was no discussion during the 27 July 2023 meeting about the status of the parties' relationship.
  • During the Authority's investigation meeting the parties agreed there was no discussion of Construst during the job interview on 27 July 2023.
  • Mr Dai acknowledged at the investigation meeting that he did not tell Mr Chen during the job interview on 27 July 2023 that he (Mr Dai) was acting as an agent for Construst.
  • Mr Dai's evidence at the investigation meeting about the fact Construst was not mentioned to Mr Chen until the WeChat message dated 3 August 2023 contradicted what he had written in his witness statement, which was prepared by his representative.
  • During the investigation meeting the parties calculated, and agreed, that if Mr Chen was held to be an employee, then his actual lost remuneration (based on the hours he had worked while employed by Mr Dai) was $5,236.53 gross.
  • Mr Dai is ordered to pay Mr Chen $20,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to compensate him for the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings his unjustified dismissal caused him.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $20,000
  • Lost wages / arrears: $760.00
  • Lost remuneration: $5,236.53
  • Penalty: $1, 250.00
  • Costs: Costs awarded.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

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