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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Browse topics