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.

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.
• 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.

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.