ClickCease

MA v NO.2 NOODLE NZ LIMITED [2026] NZERA 25 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $9,500 compensation; one week wages; $500 penalty.

Unjustified dismissal upheld. Orders included $9,500 compensation, one week's wages (net, based on 40 hours), and a $500 penalty payable to the Crown.


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.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 25
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: MA v NO.2 NOODLE NZ LIMITED
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld.

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.
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
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was employed by Keene Construction Limited as an apprentice builder. After he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment, the company director texted that there was not going to be a company anymore and told him not to bother coming into work. The ERA found it was reasonable for Mr Sun to understand that he had been dismissed. Keene Construction provided no evidence, filed no reply, did not attend the investigation meeting, and did not justify the dismissal. The Authority awarded lost wages, compensation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and costs...

Browse topics