LIEN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 70

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

Story in plain English

This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ordered after the Authority found the dismissal unjustified.

In summary, On 13 December 2023, Ms Huynh sent Ms Lien a letter alleging that she was working for another salon, and that this could amount to serious misconduct and a conflict of interest. After that, On 24 December 2023, Ms Lien emailed Ms Huynh a copy of the letter from the salon owner. Later, Ms Huynh then explained at the investigation meeting that she took this to be evidence that Ms Lien had lied to her, and the allegation then changed to an allegation Ms Lien had lied and was seeking other employment. The determination records that Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Lien's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her dismissal. The Authority notes that I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Lien claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $50,000. Ultimately, Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by the applicant. In the end, I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are LIEN (employee) and HUYNH (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• On 13 December 2023, Ms Huynh sent Ms Lien a letter alleging that she was working for another salon, and that this could amount to serious misconduct and a conflict of interest.
• On 24 December 2023, Ms Lien emailed Ms Huynh a copy of the letter from the salon owner.
• Ms Huynh then explained at the investigation meeting that she took this to be evidence that Ms Lien had lied to her, and the allegation then changed to an allegation Ms Lien had lied and was seeking other employment.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Lien's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her dismissal.
• I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Lien claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $50,000.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by the applicant.
• I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Lien was dismissed rather than during her employment, and are fatally undermined by Ms Huynh's evidence about the commercial value Ms Lien brought to the business as a nail technician and how she did not want Ms Lien working for a competitor.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Lien in the terms and conditions of her employment.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by the applicant.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration (reimbursement of wages): $8,883.20
• Compensation: $20,000.00 (hurt and humiliation)
• Penalty: $2,500.00 (breach of employment agreement / good faith)
• Costs: Reserved

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.