South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [2026] NZEmpC 193 - constructive dismissal upheld

South Pole insisted that food technology engineer Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign. When he denied doing so and continued reporting for work, the company pressured him to leave, withheld meaningful work and maintained that the dispute concerned only when his supposed resignation took effect. The Employment Court upheld the finding that the employer's conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.

The disputed resignation

Mr Hao began work as a food technology engineer in October 2022. His research-and-development role involved product and process work associated with related manufacturing businesses. By May 2023, director Easter Wu had concerns about the progress of Mr Hao's work.

Following a November 2023 meeting, Mr Wu maintained that Mr Hao had agreed to resign. Mr Hao repeatedly denied that account and made clear that he wanted to remain employed. South Pole nevertheless issued correspondence treating resignation as an agreed outcome and identifying a final working date.

Pressure to resign followed by withheld work

The Court considered the whole course of conduct. South Pole first attempted to secure Mr Hao's resignation. When he refused, it stopped giving him new or meaningful work even though he continued attending the workplace.

The company then refused to engage with him on work matters and continued pursuing the proposition that he had already agreed to resign. A lawyer's letter called him to a meeting about the disputed resignation and possible performance concerns, with disciplinary action potentially following if no suitable outcome was reached.

By late January 2024, Mr Hao was still nominally employed but unable to operate normally and was plainly unwelcome. He resigned after the pressure and uncertainty affected his health.

The employer's breaches caused the resignation

The Court found that South Pole had determined Mr Hao's employment would end. Its actions created a reasonable inference that, unless he resigned, he would be dismissed.

Pressuring him to resign, withholding work and refusing to engage breached the duty not to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, now reflected in the statutory duty of good faith. Those breaches were sufficiently serious, and resignation was reasonably foreseeable.

The resignation was therefore a constructive dismissal. Because no proper process led to termination, the dismissal was unjustified.

The awards remained payable

South Pole did not dispute the ERA calculations of $4,920 wages withheld from 15 January to 9 February 2024 and $8,200 annual-leave pay. It challenged the $15,000 compensation award, but the Court accepted that the company's conduct significantly affected Mr Hao and declined to disturb the amount.

Mr Hao, who represented himself, was also entitled to costs for the challenge and an earlier stay application. The Court noted a $500 daily costs rate for a self-represented party and left the parties to agree the amount or apply for determination.

Why this case matters

South Pole v Hao shows why an employer cannot create a resignation by repeatedly asserting that the employee agreed to leave. Where the employee disputes resignation, continues attending work and says they want to remain employed, the employer must address performance through a fair process rather than withholding work or applying pressure.

The judgment is also useful where the employee remains technically employed but is made functionally redundant within the workplace. Removing meaningful duties and refusing normal work engagement can form part of a serious breach causing constructive dismissal.

Read the full Employment Court judgment

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 Court judgment and the underlying Employment Relations Authority determination.