Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814 - Unjustified dismissal (procedural unfairness), remedies reduced for contribution
In Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814, the ERA found Mr Marcelo was dismissed on 24 January 2024 and the dismissal was substantively justified but procedurally flawed, making it unjustified. The ERA awarded 13 weeks lost wages ($14,560) and $6,000 compensation, then reduced remedies by one third for contribution and ordered payment of $13,707 within 28 working days. Costs were reserved.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814. It is a useful case on procedural fairness, suspension and performance concerns, and how remedies can be reduced for employee contribution.
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 814
- Member: Helen van Druten
- Location: Auckland
- Investigation meeting: 14 August 2025
- Determination date: 18 December 2025
- Applicant: Edmundo Marcelo (chef)
- Respondent: Golden Bulls Limited (GBL)
- Second respondent: Jong Mok (Albert) Yoon
Context
Mr Marcelo worked under an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) and alleged a range of problems including pay / hours issues, bullying, unjustified suspension, and dismissal. The case also dealt with a controlling third party (Richhold Ltd) being joined then removed after liquidation.
What was claimed
The key issues for determination included whether Mr Marcelo was unjustifiably disadvantaged (including pay / overtime / entitlements and bullying) and whether he was unjustifiably dismissed, and if so what remedies should be awarded and whether they should be reduced for contribution.
Key findings on disadvantage
- Flat rate hours arrangement: The ERA found payment on a flat rate basis was unjustifiable and in breach of contractual terms, but no unjustified disadvantage was established because there was no disadvantage to Mr Marcelo on the calculations.
- Leave and public holidays: The claim for unpaid leave / statutory entitlements was unsuccessful on the evidence.
- Transfer between sites: No unjustified disadvantage was established regarding the move between Henderson and Takapuna.
- Bullying: The bullying allegations were not made out on the evidence; witnesses denied bullying and the ERA did not accept the bullying claim.
- Suspension: The suspension decision did not meet good faith obligations and the contractual requirement to seek comments before suspension, but no separate order was made because it was addressed in the procedural deficiencies leading to dismissal.
Dismissal: what the ERA decided
The ERA treated the employment as ending by dismissal on 24 January 2024 (a letter titled "summary termination"). The dismissal was found to be substantively justified (performance and food safety concerns) but procedurally flawed, so it was an unjustified dismissal.
Remedies
- Lost wages: 13 weeks lost wages of $14,560.
- Compensation: $6,000 for hurt and humiliation.
- Contribution reduction: Remedies were reduced by one third due to blameworthy conduct contributing to the situation.
Personal liability point
The ERA also addressed whether Mr Yoon could be treated as a person involved in breaches of employment standards. It found he was appropriately included as a second respondent for those employment standards breaches, and stated that if GBL does not pay wage arrears owed, Mr Yoon will be personally liable.
Costs
Costs were reserved and the determination set a timetable for any costs memorandum if the parties could not resolve costs between themselves.
Practical takeaways
For employers
- Do not use informal "flat rate" hours arrangements without clear written agreement and clean payroll records.
- If you suspend, follow good faith obligations: provide information, seek the employee's comments first, and document why suspension is necessary.
- If performance is the real issue, use a fair, documented process (including clear expectations and an opportunity to improve).
- Be cautious where immigration / visa conditions are in play. Do not treat required terms as "paperwork formalities".
For employees
- Keep your own records of hours, rosters, and communications (texts, chats, emails).
- Raise concerns early and in writing, and follow any internal complaint procedure where possible.
- Contribution can reduce remedies. How you respond to performance or workplace issues can matter to outcomes.
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.