HAI ZHENG v JCD NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 453

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, However, if he was taken to have resigned, Mr Zheng said this was caused by breaches of his terms of employment so was really a constructive dismissal, resulting from actions initiated by JCD. After that, It said Mr Zheng attended a performance review meeting on 11 April 2024 where he was offered and accepted ongoing work as a sales assistant in three stores. Later, All witnesses were expected to attend an investigation meeting which was notified for 4 April 2025. The determination records that A note Mr Abreo wrote of the meeting was headed (quoted wording omitted). The Authority notes that The note ended: (quoted wording omitted). Ultimately, It thanked Mr Zhang for asking Mr Abreo to talk to him (quoted wording omitted) but then asked: (quoted wording omitted) Email accepted as a resignation [51] Mr Zhang did not reply to that message. In the end, Debate over resignation and pay issues [53] Two days later Mr Zheng responded to that message, this time written in Chinese: Dear Francis Thank you for your detailed email.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are HAI ZHENG (employee) and JCD NZ LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 4 April 2025.
• Authority member: Robin Arthur.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• However, if he was taken to have resigned, Mr Zheng said this was caused by breaches of his terms of employment so was really a constructive dismissal, resulting from actions initiated by JCD.
• It said Mr Zheng attended a performance review meeting on 11 April 2024 where he was offered and accepted ongoing work as a sales assistant in three stores.
• The Authority's investigation [6] JCD director George Zhang attended an Authority case management conference on 26 November 2024 which set timetable directions for both parties to lodge witness statements and relevant documents.
• All witnesses were expected to attend an investigation meeting which was notified for 4 April 2025.
• The terms of the accredited employer work visa issued to Mr Zheng by Immigration New Zealand on 30 January 2024 said (quoted wording omitted) and (quoted wording omitted).
• A note Mr Abreo wrote of the meeting was headed (quoted wording omitted).
• The note ended: (quoted wording omitted).
• It thanked Mr Zhang for asking Mr Abreo to talk to him (quoted wording omitted) but then asked: (quoted wording omitted) Email accepted as a resignation [51] Mr Zhang did not reply to that message.
• Debate over resignation and pay issues [53] Two days later Mr Zheng responded to that message, this time written in Chinese: Dear Francis Thank you for your detailed email.
• Your email response stated that you initiated the resignation, and we have accepted it.
• "You can check the email - I did not use the word 'resignation' so I was very surprised to receive a reply agreeing to my resignation."
• In an exchange of messages following that meeting Mr Zheng said Mr Zhang knew he did not (quoted wording omitted) so paying his outstanding wages (quoted wording omitted).
• In that scenario, his email on 13 April is taken as a resignation, accepted in Mr Abreo's reply that same day, and was not able to be retracted by the email Mr Zheng sent on 15 April.
• Such conduct, resulting in a resignation, is held in employment law to be as much a dismissal as if an employer had actually dismissed the employee.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $10,000
• Penalty: $5,000
• 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

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.