ClickCease

LEBRETON v DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 451 - Unjustified dismissal found (employee succeeded).

Unjustified dismissal found (employee succeeded). This determination comes from the Christchurch registry. The parties are LEBRETON (employee) and DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED (employer).


LEBRETON v DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 451

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 451
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Parties: LEBRETON v DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED
  • Main issues: Unjustified dismissal, Constructive dismissal, Unjustified disadvantage, Wages, Holiday pay, Penalties, Costs
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found (employee succeeded).

Story in plain English

The employment is described as starting on or about 4 February 2022. The dismissal/end date noted is 31 August 2023.

According to the determination, On 6 August 2023, DHI's sole director, Joe Zhao who is based in Whakatane, provided a detailed response to Ms LeBreton's allegations in the form of a statement from DHI's local manager that asserted Ms LeBreton was employed as (quoted wording omitted). After that, A further directions teleconference was held on 14 March and witness evidence exchanges were timetabled and an investigation meeting was scheduled for 27 May 2025. Later, Compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act of $15,000 for hurt and humiliation flowing from the alleged unjustified dismissal and/or unjustified disadvantage. iii. Subsequently, Mr Zhao then recalled meeting with Ms LeBreton on 1 February 2022 and offering her a job and that she filled in a new employee form. In the later stages, Mr Zhao produced an email of 21 August 2022 from the then managers partner (Sandie) that indicates the offer of (quoted wording omitted) had been made to Ms LeBreton and they were awaiting her decision. Ultimately, In the absence of a job advert and written employment agreement at the onset of the relationship or notes of any interview, from the text exchanges The Authority was satisfied that the relationship was intended and imposed by DHI as casual. In the end, However, given my findings above, the circumstances of the employment ending needs scrutiny to determine on who's initiative it ended and if The Authority found Ms LeBreton resigned, there is a question of whether she was constructively dismissed.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
  • The parties are LEBRETON (employee) and DA HAI INVESTMENT LIMITED (employer).
  • Start date noted: 4 February 2022.
  • End/dismissal date noted: 31 August 2023.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • On 6 August 2023, DHI's sole director, Joe Zhao who is based in Whakatane, provided a detailed response to Ms LeBreton's allegations in the form of a statement from DHI's local manager that asserted Ms LeBreton was employed as (quoted wording omitted).
  • A further directions teleconference was held on 14 March and witness evidence exchanges were timetabled and an investigation meeting was scheduled for 27 May 2025.
  • Compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act of $15,000 for hurt and humiliation flowing from the alleged unjustified dismissal and/or unjustified disadvantage. iii.
  • Mr Zhao then recalled meeting with Ms LeBreton on 1 February 2022 and offering her a job and that she filled in a new employee form.
  • Mr Zhao produced an email of 21 August 2022 from the then managers partner (Sandie) that indicates the offer of (quoted wording omitted) had been made to Ms LeBreton and they were awaiting her decision.
  • In the absence of a job advert and written employment agreement at the onset of the relationship or notes of any interview, from the text exchanges The Authority was satisfied that the relationship was intended and imposed by DHI as casual.
  • However, given my findings above, the circumstances of the employment ending needs scrutiny to determine on who's initiative it ended and if The Authority found Ms LeBreton resigned, there is a question of whether she was constructively dismissed.
  • The letter did not indicate Ms LeBreton wished to resign.
  • Mr Zhao's response of 26 May by email was dismissive of Ms LeBreton's concerns.
  • Mr Zhao however, maintained a belief that Ms LeBreton had (quoted wording omitted) and she was inappropriately trying to cash up her accumulated sick leave and, considered she had not been dismissed.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • Ms LeBreton says she took on the job believing it to be a core guarantee of at least 15 hours per week with more hours available if she was willing to work them - a view she impliedly and The Authority found reasonably, formed from the text exchanges with Mr Zhao.
  • In the absence of a job advert and written employment agreement at the onset of the relationship or notes of any interview, from the text exchanges The Authority was satisfied that the relationship was intended and imposed by DHI as casual.
  • The Authority found the relationship was better described as permanent part-time and had an employment agreement been provided as it should have been, it could have detailed an agreed floor of guaranteed hours consistent with the terms of the original offer made by Mr Zhao.
  • However, given my findings above, the circumstances of the employment ending needs scrutiny to determine on who's initiative it ended and if The Authority found Ms LeBreton resigned, there is a question of whether she was constructively dismissed.
  • The response was The Authority found, a somewhat disingenuous: "Hi did you send this to me by mistake?
  • Here The Authority found Ms LeBreton's lost remuneration was attributed to her personal grievances.
  • In addition, The Authority found that during her absence on sick leave Ms LeBreton should have been remunerated the accumulated sick leave she had earned of 40 hours, that at an hourly rate of $29.50 amounts to $1,180.
  • The Authority found that given the length of time that has elapsed, interest should be paid on the awards made.
  • Thus, The Authority found it appropriate to award a penalty for the identified breach.

Money and remedy references

  • Compensation: $13,000
  • Lost wages / arrears:$8,112.50
  • Holiday pay:$743.40

Practical takeaways

  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics