Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805

This determination involves multiple personal grievances (unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal) against Su's Investment Limited (SIL), trading as Coffee Studio. The issues included an abrupt suspension by WeChat without process, allegations of bullying and a hostile environment, refusal to provide holiday/leave records, and a redundancy dismissal while the employee was on ACC leave. The respondent did not participate in the Authority process. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Mr Guo worked as a chef for SIL (Coffee Studio). The dispute escalated in May 2025 after a series of WeChat messages from the director, Cassy Su, criticising his work. On 14 May 2025 SIL told Mr Guo by message that he was being given a serious warning and was immediately suspended. The message did not explain whether the suspension was paid or unpaid.

Mr Guo asked SIL to clarify whether the suspension was paid or unpaid and asked for a meeting to resolve matters. He said SIL did not respond. He returned to work the next day. Mr Guo said the alarm code had been changed and he had to ask for the new code. He continued to seek a meeting and to resolve matters "professionally", including applying for MBIE mediation. SIL did not engage with MBIE.

In July 2025 Mr Guo injured his wrist at work and provided medical certificates. While he was on ACC related leave, SIL gave notice on 5 August 2025 that his employment was being terminated due to redundancy. Mr Guo asked for information about why his role was being disestablished. He said SIL did not respond. SIL terminated the agreement on 20 August 2025.

Key issues the Authority determined

• Whether the suspension decision was an unjustified disadvantage (process and contractual authority).
• Whether SIL failed to maintain a healthy and safe work environment (including alleged bullying).
• Whether SIL disadvantaged Mr Guo by refusing to provide holiday/leave records and by not providing wage/time records on request.
• Whether SIL unjustifiably dismissed Mr Guo by terminating on redundancy grounds without consultation, including while he was on ACC leave.
• What remedies were appropriate (compensation, lost remuneration, holiday pay) and whether any contribution reduction applied.

Findings

1) Suspension: unjustified disadvantage

The Authority found the suspension decision was made without a fair process. The agreement did not expressly give SIL a right to suspend. SIL did not provide advance notice of a proposal to suspend or invite comment, and the suspension message did not state whether it was paid or unpaid. Even though the suspension did not take effect (because Mr Guo returned to work the next day), the Authority held Mr Guo was disadvantaged by the decision and by the uncertainty it created.

2) Healthy and safe work environment

Mr Guo alleged bullying and a stressful environment (including being ignored when seeking to address concerns, the alarm code change incident, and workload issues). The Authority treated the evidence as supporting an unjustified disadvantage claim connected with workplace bullying/health and safety obligations.

3) Holiday/leave records and wage/time records

Mr Guo repeatedly requested information about his leave entitlements and balances and was not provided adequate records. The Authority held this disadvantaged him because he could not accurately understand and pursue his holiday pay entitlements. The Authority also found SIL breached its obligation to provide wage and time records on request and imposed a penalty for that breach.

4) Redundancy dismissal: unjustified dismissal

The Authority found SIL terminated Mr Guo on redundancy grounds without providing information, without consultation, and without any form of process, including while Mr Guo was on ACC related sick leave. Measured against the s 103A test, the dismissal was not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in the circumstances and was unjustified.

Remedies and orders

The Authority awarded compensation for the combined impact of the established personal grievances, and also ordered lost remuneration and outstanding holiday pay. No reduction was made for contribution.

Practical takeaways

• Suspension requires process: absent an express contractual right, an employer should give notice of a proposal to suspend, explain the reasons, and invite comment first. Always clarify whether suspension is paid or unpaid.
• Do not ignore employees raising concerns: refusing to engage can worsen disadvantage and bullying allegations and can undermine later justification arguments.
• Redundancy still requires consultation: even if the employer believes the role is not needed, the employee must be given information and a meaningful opportunity to comment before termination.
• Records matter: failing to provide leave records or wage/time records can create disadvantage and can attract penalties.
• Non-participation is dangerous: if a respondent does not file a reply or attend, the Authority can proceed and decide the case on the evidence available.

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.