JIANG v TRUSTED TOUCH THERAPY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) and ORS [2025] NZERA 385

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 (partly successful).

In summary, Ms Jiang raised her unjustified dismissal personal grievance with TTTL through her lawyer's correspondence dated 28 March 2024. After that, TTTL was placed in liquidation on 29 April 2025, following the investigation meeting but before the determination was completed. Later, There was a case management conference and I repeated the direction to mediation, but also set arrangements for an investigation meeting in the event that matters were not resolved. The determination records that Ms Jiang and a former employee of TTTL both attended the investigation meeting on 18 February 2025 to confirm their evidence on oath and answer questions. The Authority notes that Mr Du was served with the proceedings and notice of the further investigation meeting. 1 Companies Act 1993 s 248(1)(c). 4 [19] Mr Du attended on 13 March 2025, gave oral evidence and answered questions. Ultimately, The second letter was Ms Jiang's resignation on four weeks' notice. In the end, The email advised Ms Jiang that she was suspended from 18 January 2024.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are JIANG (employee) and TRUSTED TOUCH THERAPY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) and ORS (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 18 February 2025 and 13 March 2025.
• Authority member: Philip Cheyne.

Key events described

• Ms Jiang raised her unjustified dismissal personal grievance with TTTL through her lawyer's correspondence dated 28 March 2024.
• TTTL was placed in liquidation on 29 April 2025, following the investigation meeting but before the determination was completed.
• There was a case management conference and I repeated the direction to mediation, but also set arrangements for an investigation meeting in the event that matters were not resolved.
• Ms Jiang and a former employee of TTTL both attended the investigation meeting on 18 February 2025 to confirm their evidence on oath and answer questions.
• Mr Du was served with the proceedings and notice of the further investigation meeting. 1 Companies Act 1993 s 248(1)(c). 4 [19] Mr Du attended on 13 March 2025, gave oral evidence and answered questions.
• The second letter was Ms Jiang's resignation on four weeks' notice.
• The email advised Ms Jiang that she was suspended from 18 January 2024.
• The Authority found that the letter was first presented to Ms Jiang on 26 November 2023 and she signed it shortly thereafter.
• She was given notice of dismissal on 8 January 2024, required to sign both letters in the meeting that day and told that TTTL was prepared to treat it as a resignation if she did not challenge its decision to terminate her employment.
• The dismissal letter sets out a number of allegations.
• The threat to disclose the dismissal letter to immigration if Ms Jiang disputed the termination of her employment but otherwise to portray it as her resignation, reinforces my conclusion that there was no substance to the allegations in the letter.
• The Authority found that TTTL's dismissal of Ms Jiang was unjustified.

Decision markers

• For reasons set out later, The Authority found that this casual agreement was proffered by TTTL and signed by Ms Jiang on 26 November 2023.
• From that, The Authority found that TTTL kept inaccurate wage and time records for Ms Jiang from 30 October 2023.
• The Authority found that it was usually around $300.00 in cash per week until early November when TTTL started to pay wages by direct credit.
• The Authority found that the letter was first presented to Ms Jiang on 26 November 2023 and she signed it shortly thereafter.
• Ms Jiang's bank records mostly show the net payments recorded in the payslips.4 The Authority found that TTTL paid Ms Jiang $8,832.01 (gross) during her employment.
• The Authority found that TTTL did not comply with s 69ZD of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and is liable to a penalty of up to $20,000.00. 13 Employment Relations Act 2000 s 69ZD(4) and (6). 14 Employment Relations Act 2000 s 69ZG(2).
• The Authority found that TTTL's dismissal of Ms Jiang was unjustified.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $40,000.00
• Costs: Costs considered.
• Other payments: $1,618.25

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

• 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.