Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Jia Jia, who worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant from 3 July 2024 until 15 September 2024. Ms Jia was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after TBS could no longer offer full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The Authority found that Ms Jia was both unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged during her employment. TBS was ordered to pay two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties, costs and the filing fee. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Ms Jia was a citizen of China and held a post-study open work visa that allowed her to work for any employer in New Zealand. On 1 July 2024 she responded to a Skykiwi advertisement for a retail sales assistant role. She was interviewed on 2 July 2024 and began work for TBS the following day.

Her usual hours were Monday to Friday, 9.30 am to 3 pm, although she said she sometimes worked on Saturdays. The Authority recorded that Ms Jia identified TBS, not Ms Han personally, as her employer. Ms Han accepted at the investigation meeting that Ms Jia had not been provided with an individual employment agreement and described this as her own fault.

Late wages, but no final wage arrears

Ms Jia was paid fortnightly, but not always on time. She produced a WhatsApp message from 2 August 2024 asking Ms Han when she could expect to receive wages that had not arrived by the due date. When asked why Ms Jia was not always paid on time, Ms Han candidly said that she had no money in her bank account at the time.

Wage arrears had been pleaded in Ms Jia's claim. However, when questioned at the investigation meeting, Ms Jia accepted that she was no longer owed wages because Ms Han had paid her back. The Authority therefore treated the late payment of wages as a breach attracting a penalty, rather than as an unpaid wage arrears order.

How the employment ended

Ms Jia's employment ended on 15 September 2024, about two and a half months after she began work. The Authority recorded that it appeared Ms Han could no longer provide full-time work. Part-time work was not sustainable for Ms Jia, and Ms Jia was adamant that she had not resigned.

There was no clear statement from Ms Han saying that Ms Jia was dismissed. However, TBS stopped offering Ms Jia any further work after 15 September 2024. Ms Jia raised a personal grievance by letter dated 4 October 2024. She found alternative full-time sales work after about two months, and later returned to China at the end of February 2025.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The Authority applied the objective justification test in s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. It found there was no compliance by TBS with the procedural fairness factors. If Ms Han could no longer afford to provide full-time work because of poor business performance, TBS needed to engage in a process and provide Ms Jia with information relevant to the continuation of her employment.

The Authority accepted that Ms Han's serious health challenges and absence from the business would have affected TBS's performance. But even for a small business owner facing those difficulties, a fair and reasonable employer would have been more responsive and communicative. Going "radio silent" and not offering work after 15 September were not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer.

The Authority also linked the unfairness to the absence of a written employment agreement and late wage payments. A fair and reasonable employer would have ensured Ms Jia had an agreement and that her fortnightly wages were paid when due. The Authority found that Ms Jia was unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged during her employment.

Lost wages

Ms Jia was entitled to reimbursement because she lost income as a result of the unjustified dismissal. It took her two months to find full-time work in a similar sales role. The Authority therefore awarded two months' lost wages under s 128(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The Authority could not calculate the amount precisely because relevant information had not been provided, including TBS's wage and time record for Ms Jia. It recorded that the final sum was to be based on Ms Jia working full time for TBS over a typical fortnight, multiplied by four.

Compensation

The Authority took a global approach to compensation for both the unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. Ms Jia said the lack of a written employment agreement made her feel insecure in her employment. The dismissal also affected her ability to send remittances to her financially dependent child in China.

The Authority assessed the emotional harm as falling within the top end of band one and awarded $12,500 compensation for hurt and humiliation. It also considered contribution under s 124 but was not satisfied that Ms Jia had acted in a blameworthy way that contributed to her grievances. There was no reduction.

Penalties for no employment agreement and late wage payment

The Authority held that a further penalty was required for TBS's failure to provide Ms Jia with an employment agreement. This was important because TBS had already been penalised before for not providing another employee with an employment agreement. The Authority fixed a $1,500 penalty, with the whole amount payable to Ms Jia.

The Authority also imposed a $750 penalty for the late payment of wages. Although Ms Han had eventually paid the wages, the Authority emphasised that payment needed to be made when wages became payable, not when Ms Han could afford to pay. This penalty was also ordered to be paid entirely to Ms Jia.

Helen Han's personal exposure was limited

Ms Jia sought leave to recover from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay the awards. The Authority granted leave under ss 142W and 142Y of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but only on a limited basis.

The Authority explained that s 142Y does not extend to compensation for hurt and humiliation or remedies under s 123 of the Act. Ms Han's personal liability was therefore limited to the two penalties awarded against TBS, totalling $2,250, if the company could not pay those penalties. All other remedies remained payable by TBS.

Why this case matters

Jia v TBS Trading Limited is a useful example of a short employment relationship still giving rise to significant remedies where the basics are not done properly. The employment lasted only about two and a half months, but the lack of an employment agreement, late wage payment, poor communication, and ending of work without process were enough to establish both unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage.

The case also shows that financial pressure is not a defence to poor process. The Authority accepted that Ms Han had serious health issues and that the business was under financial pressure. But those matters did not remove TBS's obligations to communicate, consult, provide information, and pay wages on time.

Finally, the determination shows the limits of personal recovery against directors. The director was not made personally liable for compensation or lost wages under the personal grievance provisions. The personal recovery order was confined to the minimum employment standards penalties, and only if the company could not pay them.

Practical takeaways

• Give the employee a written agreement: failing to provide one is a breach of a basic employment standard and can attract penalties.
• Pay wages on time: eventual payment does not excuse late payment.
• Do not go silent: if hours or work availability are changing, the employer must communicate clearly and in good faith.
• Consult before ending employment: if full-time work is no longer available, the employee should be given relevant information and a chance to comment before the decision is made.
• Short service does not remove personal grievance rights: an employee can still receive lost wages, compensation, penalties and costs even after a short period of employment.
• Director exposure has limits: recovery against a person involved may be available for minimum employment standards breaches, but not automatically for all personal grievance remedies.

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.