Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805 - Redundancy dismissal without consultation, $29,432 ordered plus penalty
In Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited (trading as the Coffee Studio) [2025] NZERA 805, the ERA found unjustified disadvantage (abrupt suspension, bullying / unsafe environment, and failure to provide leave records) and unjustified dismissal where the employer purported to make the sole chef redundant without any consultation or information. The ERA ordered $25,000 compensation, $2,784 lost wages, $1,648 holiday pay, and a $500 penalty to the Crown, payable within 21 days. Costs were reserved.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805 (Auckland). The case is a clear reminder that redundancy requires genuine consultation and relevant information (even for small employers), and that silence and non-engagement can materially worsen outcomes.
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 805
- ERA registry: Auckland
- Member: Simon Greening
- Investigation meeting: 4 December 2025
- Determination date: 12 December 2025
- Applicant: Haochen Guo (chef)
- Respondent: Su's Investment Limited (trading as the Coffee Studio)
- Director / manager referenced: Cassy Su
- Representation: William Zhang (counsel) for Mr Guo; no appearance for the respondent
Background (timeline)
- 27 February 2023: Employment started (chef).
- 13 May 2025: WeChat messages complaining about food preparation and performance.
- 14 May 2025: WeChat message issuing a warning and purporting to suspend Mr Guo immediately.
- 15 May 2025: Mr Guo returned to work (no response on whether suspension was paid/unpaid); alarm code had been changed.
- End of May 2025: Mr Guo applied to MBIE mediation; employer did not engage.
- 15 July 2025: Workplace wrist injury; ACC-related medical certificates provided.
- 5 August 2025: Notice of termination due to redundancy sent while Mr Guo was on ACC leave.
- 20 August 2025: Employment terminated.
- 11 September 2025: Mr Guo obtained new employment.
What claims were decided
- Unjustified disadvantage: suspension process.
- Unjustified disadvantage: failure to maintain a healthy and safe work environment (bullying).
- Unjustified disadvantage: failure to provide holiday / leave records on request.
- Employment standards: failure to provide wages and time record (s 130(2)) and penalty.
- Unjustified dismissal: redundancy dismissal without consultation or information.
- Outstanding annual leave / holiday pay.
The employer did not participate
The determination records that the respondent did not file a statement in reply, did not engage with MBIE mediation, and did not attend the investigation meeting. The Authority proceeded after being satisfied service had been effected and the respondent had a fair opportunity to participate.
Key findings
1) Unjustified disadvantage: suspension
The Authority held the employer acted unfairly by purporting to suspend Mr Guo immediately without notice and without seeking his comments. The employment agreement did not expressly provide a right to suspend, and the suspension notice did not even specify whether it was paid or unpaid.
Even though the suspension did not end up taking effect (because Mr Guo returned to work), the failure to follow process created financial uncertainty and was not what a fair and reasonable employer would have done.
2) Unjustified disadvantage: bullying / unsafe environment
The Authority found the employer failed to maintain a healthy and safe work environment. It accepted the applicant's evidence that the manager: ignored attempts to resolve matters professionally, changed the alarm code (causing him to feel like a "burglar"), and did not address significant workload concerns.
The Authority held the applicant experienced emotional distress at work and the conduct undermined trust in the employment relationship.
3) Unjustified disadvantage: leave records and wages/time record
Mr Guo repeatedly raised concerns about leave balances and did not receive meaningful records. The Authority held he was disadvantaged because he could not determine his annual leave balance and could not bring an accurate claim for holiday pay.
Separately, the Authority found a breach of s 130(2) (failure to provide the wages and time record on request) and imposed a $500 penalty to the Crown.
4) Unjustified dismissal: redundancy without consultation
The employer purported to terminate on redundancy grounds. The Authority applied the established redundancy principles (including Grace Team Accounting Ltd v Brake) and held the dismissal was unjustified because the employer:
- did not consult before deciding to disestablish the role and terminate employment;
- did not provide any proposal or relevant information to enable feedback;
- provided no business case supporting redundancy, despite the applicant being the sole chef for the cafe;
- issued redundancy notice while the applicant was on ACC-related sick leave.
Remedies and orders
Compensation (s 123)
The Authority awarded a total of $25,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. It broke this down as:
- $8,000 for the disadvantage claim arising from bullying at work;
- $16,000 for the dismissal claim;
- $1,000 for the disadvantage claim relating to leave records.
Lost remuneration (s 128)
Lost remuneration of $2,784 (gross) was awarded for the period between dismissal (20 August 2025) and new employment (11 September 2025). The Authority held the applicant's mitigation steps were reasonable.
Holiday pay / annual leave
The Authority ordered $1,648 (gross) for outstanding holiday pay. The determination also indicates interest should be applied using the civil debt interest calculation approach.
A practical point for employers: failure to provide leave records can prevent accurate resolution and increases exposure when records are missing.
Contribution and costs
- Contribution (s 124): no reduction; the employer did not follow any process in addressing alleged performance concerns.
- Costs: reserved (with a timetable if costs are pursued).
Practical takeaways for redundancy cases
For employers
- Consult first: redundancy consultation must happen before the decision is made.
- Provide relevant information: give enough detail about the business rationale so the employee can respond meaningfully (s 4(1A)).
- Redeployment and alternatives: consider and discuss options to avoid dismissal.
- Do not go silent: ignoring questions, mediation, and Authority directions is a high-risk strategy.
- Keep records: wages/time, leave records, and payslips must be available. Non-compliance can attract penalties.
For employees
- Ask for the proposal, the rationale, and the documents supporting redundancy.
- Put redeployment options in writing early.
- Keep your own records of leave, payslips, and communications (texts/WeChat/emails).
- Mitigate loss and document job search steps if you seek lost wages.
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
Unjustified redundancy: when redundancy becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance
The Employment Court upheld a determination of the Employment Relations Authority that an employer pay its former employee substantial compensation for hurt and humiliation in remedy of the redundancy having been found unjustifiable.
![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.