MA v NO.2 NOODLE NZ LIMITED [2026] NZERA 25

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

Story in plain English

Ms Ma worked for No.2 Noodle NZ Limited for a short period. A dispute arose after a meeting about reducing available hours, followed by a phone call on 17 June 2024. The Authority found that, viewed objectively, the employer's actions amounted to a "sending away" and Ms Ma's employment ended abruptly on 17 June 2024. The Authority upheld the personal grievance for unjustified dismissal and made orders for compensation, lost wages, and a penalty payable to the Crown.

Key case markers

• Authority member: Simon Greening.
• Employment ended: 17 June 2024.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Although Ms Ma worked for a short period, Ma says she was employed on a permanent basis and was unjustifiably dismissed on 17 June 2024.
• Ms Ma says she was dismissed during a phone call with David Niu, the general manager, on 17 June 2024.
• N2N says Ms Ma was a casual employee who abandoned employment after a phone call on 17 June 2024.
• Further, N2N says that Ms Ma was a valued employee, and it was unfortunate Ms Ma incorrectly formed the view during the call on 17 June 2024 that she was being dismissed.
• Ms Ma says she was employed on a permanent basis and unjustifiably dismissed on 17 June 2024.
• The agreed key facts are: Sunday 16 June 2024 (a) Mr Niu advised staff at a meeting that due to a slow-down in customer demand there was a need to reduce the hours of work available for all employees.
• Wednesday 19 June (c) Ms Ma's representative sent a personal grievance letter to N2N claiming that Ms Ma had been dismissed during the call on Monday 17 June.
• Ms Ma was dismissed on 17 June 2024 [40] Although Mr Niu says that he did not tell Ms Ma she had been dismissed during the call on 17 June, an express statement to that effect is not necessary.7 [41] An objective assessment is required.
• The reasons for this conclusion follow: (a) Ms Ma was not on the roster when it was sent by Mr Niu to the staff team on 17 June after the phone call with Ms Ma. (b) Mr Niu sent a WeChat message to Ms Ma, noting she had not been dismissed.
• The decision to not reinstate Ms Ma to the roster following this phone call amounted to a sending away.9 [47] It follows that Ms Ma was unjustifiably dismissed when her employment with N2N concluded abruptly on 17 June.
• At the investigation meeting Ms Ma provided compelling evidence regarding the impact of the dismissal on her.
• Ms Ma commenced employment with a new restaurant on 22 June 2024, five days after the dismissal.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority found Ms Ma established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
• A penalty was ordered for an employment standards breach, payable to the Crown.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $9,500 (payable within 21 days of the determination).
• Lost wages: A net sum equivalent to one week's wages based on a 40-hour working week (payable within 21 days of the determination).
• Penalty: $500 payable to the Crown (payable within 21 days of the determination).
• Costs: Reserved.

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.