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
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.

KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

In an anonymised retail case, the ERA found that XSH unjustifiably disadvantaged KCY by failing to follow up her bullying complaint, placing her on paid special leave without proper consultation, and directing an immediate store transfer as a fait accompli. Her summary dismissal over expired promotional gifts and a back-office passcode was also unjustified because relevant evidence of common store practice and staff deception was not properly investigated. Compensation totalled $40,000 after contribution reductions, with further lost-remuneration and annual-leave orders.

Sione Afimeimounga v NPD Limited [2026] NZERA 506 - tanker driver constructively and unjustifiably dismissed

NPD failed for years to meaningfully address tanker driver Sione Afimeimounga's workload, scheduling and health and safety concerns. After he resigned on extended notice, NPD dismissed him for serious misconduct based on selected messages from a provocative exchange with another driver. The ERA found constructive dismissal, unjustified summary dismissal and unjustified suspension. NPD was ordered to pay $13,608 gross lost wages, $22,500 compensation after 10 percent contribution, and a $4,000 records penalty.

Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited [2026] NZERA 509 - employer stopped paying founder to force resignation

EverEdge Global Limited stopped paying founder and CEO Paul Adams while he continued working from Amsterdam, ignored his repeated requests for payment, and advanced multiple inconsistent explanations later. The ERA found EverEdge deliberately withheld salary to pressure him to resign, amounting to unjustified constructive dismissal. Awards totalled $267,640.69, including salary arrears, six months' lost remuneration, KiwiSaver, $30,000 compensation and a $7,500 good-faith penalty.

Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo v Kaur Queens Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 507 - taxi driver was an employee and constructively dismissed

Although the written agreement called Mr Takaloo an independent contractor, the ERA found that the real nature of his relationship with Kaur Queens Trading Limited was employment. Withholding his final wages, verbal abuse, aggressive conduct and cancelling his access amounted to unjustified constructive dismissal. The company was ordered to pay $2,045 wages, $286.04 holiday pay, $12,038 lost remuneration and $7,500 compensation.

Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

Carol Chesmar had worked for Rooney Earthmoving Limited for more than nine years when her labourer position was disestablished. The ERA accepted that the redundancy was not a sham and that Rooney Earthmoving had genuine work and financial concerns. However, it withheld relevant financial and operational information, failed to consult over the end of Mrs Chesmar's Taiko landfill deployment, had effectively decided by the start of consultation that her role would go, and gave her no meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome. The dismissal was unjustified. Rooney Earthmoving was ordered to pay $14,471.60 gross lost remuneration and $25,000 compensation.

Browse topics