Shenwei Zhang v Fat Dragon Restaurant Management Limited and Kejian Ji [2025] NZERA 737 - "Casual" label rejected, unjustified dismissal, and wage/holiday arrears

This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Shenwei Zhang v Fat Dragon Restaurant Management Limited and Kejian Ji [2025] NZERA 737 (Auckland, Member Marija Urlich, determination dated 14 November 2025).

Background and the issues

Mr Zhang worked as a waiter at Fat Dragon from 15 April 2019 until 26 September 2023. The employer said he was a casual employee engaged "as required". Mr Zhang said he was dismissed and raised a personal grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal, as well as claims for arrears and entitlements under the Holidays Act 2003.

The ERA identified (among other issues) whether Mr Zhang was casual or permanent, whether he was dismissed (and if so whether it was justified), and whether arrears were owed for sick and bereavement leave, public holidays (time and a half and alternative holidays), annual leave, and COVID wage subsidy underpayments, plus interest, penalties, and whether leave should be granted to pursue Mr Ji as a person involved.

Casual vs permanent: substance over labels

Even though the written agreement described Mr Zhang as "casual", the ERA focused on the real nature of the relationship. Key features included:

• Integral work: Mr Zhang performed core operational duties (waiter and related roles) that were fundamental to the restaurant's business.
• Regular, long-term pattern: Time records showed consistent, ongoing work over years, with Mr Zhang working most weeks and usually multiple shifts per week.
• Mutual expectations created by rostering: Mr Zhang provided availability through an app, the employer published rosters, and shifts were adjusted via WeChat. The arrangement accommodated exam periods, but still reflected an ongoing rostered relationship rather than discrete "one-off" engagements.
• Agreement terms inconsistent with true casual work: The contract included provisions pointing to ongoing obligations (for example notice, restraint of trade, and other ongoing relationship features).

Was there a dismissal?

The evidence showed Mr Zhang noticed a reduction in shifts and then stopped receiving rosters. He was directed to speak with the head chef about rostering. After he did, the head chef said there were no shifts, told him to look for another job, raised performance criticisms, and finished with "You don't need to come anymore" (translation). Mr Zhang treated that as a dismissal and raised a PG.

The employer later attempted to send a roster with a shift starting about an hour after the roster was sent. The ERA found this did not "undo" what had already happened. The head chef was an authorised representative for rostering, and the message exchange amounted to a termination of employment.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The ERA applied the statutory test of justification in s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, including minimum standards of procedural fairness and good faith. Mr Zhang was entitled to have any concerns put to him, to be given relevant information, to have a fair opportunity to respond, and for the employer to genuinely consider that response. None of that occurred. The dismissal was therefore unjustified.

Remedies and monetary awards

Penalties, "person involved", and costs

• Records penalty: The employer acknowledged a request for wage and time records was overlooked and records were later provided. The ERA said the delay was not acceptable, but did not award a penalty.
• Person involved: Leave to recover against Mr Ji as a person involved was declined, due to insufficient evidence of a qualifying default.
• Costs: Costs were reserved. The ERA encouraged the parties to resolve costs and set a timetable if a costs determination was needed.

Employer lessons from [2025] NZERA 737

Read the decision

Open [2025] NZERA 737 (PDF)