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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics