ClickCease

TONG v SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 460 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Mr Tong's grievance claims Claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal [20] Mr Tong's closing submissions did not differentiate which alleged facts supported each of his grievance claims.


TONG v SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 460

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 460
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: TONG v SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor
  • Authority member: Alex Leulu
  • Hearing date: 26 September 2024, 2 and 3 March 2025 (3 days)
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

According to the determination, On 1 November 2022 Mr Tong attended a job interview by audio-visual link with Ms Wang on behalf of Sheffield Steel. After that, On 25 May 2023 SRL secured a job interview for Mr Tong with another employer. Later, Mr Tong's grievance claims Claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal [20] Mr Tong's closing submissions did not differentiate which alleged facts supported each of his grievance claims. Subsequently, A constructive dismissal is when an employer's conduct compels a worker to resign.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are TONG (employee) and SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 26 September 2024, 2 and 3 March 2025 (3 days).
  • Authority member: Alex Leulu.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • On 1 November 2022 Mr Tong attended a job interview by audio-visual link with Ms Wang on behalf of Sheffield Steel.
  • On 25 May 2023 SRL secured a job interview for Mr Tong with another employer.
  • Mr Tong's grievance claims Claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal [20] Mr Tong's closing submissions did not differentiate which alleged facts supported each of his grievance claims.
  • A constructive dismissal is when an employer's conduct compels a worker to resign.
  • A resignation may be deemed to be a constructive dismissal if an employer could reasonably foresee an employee would resign rather than put up with the ongoing breaches.3 2 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 160(3). 3 Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 at 374-375.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Lost wages / arrears:$13,324.80
  • Compensation: $15,000
  • 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.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
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, Constructive Dismissal
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...

Browse topics