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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Browse topics