Nan Jia and Huachao Hou v FX NZ Limited and Yingsi Wei [2026] NZERA 30

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

Story in plain English

Nan Jia and Huachao Hou v FX NZ Limited and Yingsi Wei is an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination from AUCKLAND. The Authority ordered remedies, including compensation and payment of wage/holiday pay entitlements.

[1] Nan Jia and Huachao Hou both worked as construction workers for FX NZ Limited (FX). FX is a small construction company providing plastering and other minor construction services in Auckland. Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that FX made unlawful deductions from their wages for rent payments and failed to pay them statutory wage entitlements including public holiday pay and annual leave. [2] In addition to the above claims, both Mr Jia and Mr Hou raised grievances for unjustified disadvantage on the basis that...

The Authority held an investigation meeting on 16 October 2025 in Auckland. The respondents did not appear and the matter proceeded based on the evidence filed.

Key themes recorded include: Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that FX made unlawful deductions from their wages for rent payments and failed to pay them statutory wage entitlements including public holiday pay and annual leave. (g) Did FX breach s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 (WPA) by unlawfully making deductions from Mr Jia's pay? Mr Jia further claims unjustified dismissal as he says he was forced to resign when he was not provided with any hours of work.

The orders section sets out the payments and compliance steps the Authority required, and costs were dealt with separately.

Key events described

• Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that FX made unlawful deductions from their wages for rent payments and failed to pay them statutory wage entitlements including public holiday pay and annual leave.
• (g) Did FX breach s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 (WPA) by unlawfully making deductions from Mr Jia's pay?
• Mr Jia further claims unjustified dismissal as he says he was forced to resign when he was not provided with any hours of work.
• [40] As it relates to deductions from the wages earned by Mr Jia and Mr Hou, there is no information to suggest that the manner of payment for Mr Jia was any different to that used to pay Mr Hao.
• As a full payslip was not provided and the amounts paid in cash did not align with the corresponding amounts paid into the bank accounts, I am unable to determine whether a deduction from wages for rent was made or not.
• There were three breaches repeated multiple times - the repeated decision to pay a portion of wages in cash, the failure to provide a guaranteed minimum number of hours and failure to pay leave and holiday entitlements as outlined in the employment agreement.
• [82] If FX defaults on paying the wage arrears, refund deductions for the car and rubbish for Mr Hou and Mr Jia respectively, sick leave owed to Mr Jia and holiday pay owed to both Mr Jia and Mr Hou as ordered above, Mr Wei will be personally liable to pay Mr Jia and Mr Hou the arrears and other money that FX cannot.
• Did FX make unlawful deductions from wages for Mr Jia and/or Mr Hou?
• (k) Did FX breach s 4 of the WPA by unlawfully making deductions from Mr Hou's pay?
• (e) Was Mr Jia constructively dismissed on 16 September 2024 by FX's failure to pay him on time and wage arrears?
• Public holidays [28] Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that public holiday pay entitlements were not paid for the periods of their employment.
• Remedies [60] Mr Jia said that he relied on his savings to support himself and to pay his rent in the weeks before his resignation as no work was available.

Decision markers

• Accordingly, I find that Mr Jia and Mr Hou's unjustified disadvantage grievances are successful.
• However, the Authority has decided to adopt a globalised approach to assessing one overall award of compensation so has not separately considered the unjustified constructive grievance application.
• Compensation under s123(1)(c)(i) of the Act.
• FX is ordered to pay Mr Jia and Mr Hou $11,000 each as compensation pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act.
• Mr Jia further claims unjustified dismissal as he says he was forced to resign when he was not provided with any hours of work.
• Unjustified disadvantage [44] Both Mr Jia and Mr Hou claim that they were unjustifiably disadvantaged in their employment by the actions of FZ.
• As no fair and reasonable employer could have failed to make payments as agreed, the disadvantage was unjustified.2 [50] I see no difference to that basic principle here.
• Compensation under s123(1)(c)(i) of the Act (d) If any remedies are awarded, should they be reduced (under s124 of the Act) for blameworthy conduct by Mr Hou that contributed to the situation giving rise to his grievance?
• [2] In addition to the above claims, both Mr Jia and Mr Hou raised grievances for unjustified disadvantage on the basis that their wages were not paid in time despite repeated requests for payment and FX stopped providing the contracted hours to them as provided in their employment agreement.
• I consider such a penalty is appropriate.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $11,000 x2
• Lost wages / arrears: $5,189.18, $7,728.37
• Reimbursement: $40, $1,000

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Late or incomplete wage payment and unlawful deductions can support unjustified disadvantage and Wages Protection Act issues, as well as arrears claims.
• Constructive dismissal can arise where an employer's conduct leaves the employee with no practical option but to resign.
• Where a respondent does not participate, the Authority may still proceed if satisfied proper notice and service occurred.
• Always check the orders section: it is the authoritative list of payments, timeframes, and compliance steps.

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.