LI v MASTER Z FOOD LIMITED [2025] NZERA 335

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.

In summary, Mr Zhang said Ms Li said she had received an offer of employment and resigned at the meeting. After that, Ms Li says they told her they had decided to dismiss her, she could work out the week and they were firm in their 8 For example, refer Ms Li WeChat message to Mr Zhang 2 April 2023, 12.28pm, translated "Of course, if you think I am not ok, I will fully accept it. Later, There is no evidence Ms Li resigned prior to the meeting. The determination records that As stated above, the possibility of Ms Li resigning was a live issue between the parties, but she had not resigned prior to the 16 April meeting. The Authority notes that In his evidence Mr Zhang said he did not know the employment agreement did not contain such a provision, but this was not relevant because Ms Li resigned at the April meeting. Ultimately, Weight must also be given to Mr Zhang's response to Ms Li on 10 May and on balance The Authority found it is more likely than not to accurately reflect that her employment ended at the initiative of MZF at the 16 April meeting.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are LI (employee) and MASTER Z FOOD LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 23 January and 19 March 2025.
• Authority member: Marija Urlich.

Key events described

• Mr Zhang said Ms Li said she had received an offer of employment and resigned at the meeting.
• Ms Li says they told her they had decided to dismiss her, she could work out the week and they were firm in their 8 For example, refer Ms Li WeChat message to Mr Zhang 2 April 2023, 12.28pm, translated "Of course, if you think I am not ok, I will fully accept it.
• There is no evidence Ms Li resigned prior to the meeting.
• As stated above, the possibility of Ms Li resigning was a live issue between the parties, but she had not resigned prior to the 16 April meeting.
• In his evidence Mr Zhang said he did not know the employment agreement did not contain such a provision, but this was not relevant because Ms Li resigned at the April meeting.
• Weight must also be given to Mr Zhang's response to Ms Li on 10 May and on balance The Authority found it is more likely than not to accurately reflect that her employment ended at the initiative of MZF at the 16 April meeting.

Decision markers

• Remedies [38] Ms Li has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $15,000
• Costs: Costs considered.

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

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• 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.