THING v SOUTH POLE IP HOLDING (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 142

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, Ms Thing (quoted wording omitted) and returns to work [18] On 30 April 2022, Ms Thing informed Ms Liu via WeChat message that she was resigning as she did not think the job was suitable and was (quoted wording omitted). After that, Ms Thing asks about her employment status [28] On 30 October 2022, Ms Thing asked by WeChat message asking if she was (quoted wording omitted) Ms Liu responded (quoted wording omitted) and asked if she was planning to leave. Later, Dismissal vs resignation [68] For Ms Thing's dismissal claim to succeed, she must show that there was an act of termination by South Pole.6 Dismissal is the termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. The determination records that A resignation that arises from the employer's conduct towards the employee, particularly if there has been a breach of duty that made resignation reasonably foreseeable, may amount to a constructive dismissal. The Authority notes that Ms Thing's position is that she was summarily dismissed on Monday 8 May 2023 without valid cause or proper process being followed. Ultimately, Rather than being unequivocally sent away, The Authority found Ms Thing's actions instead amounted to a resignation. In the end, It was not a free and genuine resignation, as South Pole's breaches of duty in withdrawing work hours rendered it a constructive dismissal. dismissed.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are THING (employee) and SOUTH POLE IP HOLDING (NZ) LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 14 November 2024.
• Authority member: Sarah Blick.

Key events described

• Ms Thing (quoted wording omitted) and returns to work [18] On 30 April 2022, Ms Thing informed Ms Liu via WeChat message that she was resigning as she did not think the job was suitable and was (quoted wording omitted).
• Ms Thing asks about her employment status [28] On 30 October 2022, Ms Thing asked by WeChat message asking if she was (quoted wording omitted) Ms Liu responded (quoted wording omitted) and asked if she was planning to leave.
• Dismissal vs resignation [68] For Ms Thing's dismissal claim to succeed, she must show that there was an act of termination by South Pole.6 Dismissal is the termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
• A resignation that arises from the employer's conduct towards the employee, particularly if there has been a breach of duty that made resignation reasonably foreseeable, may amount to a constructive dismissal.
• Ms Thing's position is that she was summarily dismissed on Monday 8 May 2023 without valid cause or proper process being followed.
• Rather than being unequivocally sent away, The Authority found Ms Thing's actions instead amounted to a resignation.
• It was not a free and genuine resignation, as South Pole's breaches of duty in withdrawing work hours rendered it a constructive dismissal. dismissed.
• On 13 June 2023, Ms Thing's representative wrote to South Pole raising personal grievances for (quoted wording omitted).

Decision markers

• Rather than being unequivocally sent away, The Authority found Ms Thing's actions instead amounted to a resignation.
• Ms Thing has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $15, 000
• Lost wages: $8,000 8 weeks' lost wages
• Holiday pay: $23.50
• Costs: Costs reserved.

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

Practical takeaways

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.