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
Xiaoshuai Huang v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 224 - courier driver held to be employee; constructive dismissal after ACC pressure; $26,146.26 ordered

A parcel courier driver was treated by the company as an independent contractor, but the ERA found the real relationship was employment due to app-based control, penalties and lack of genuine independence. After the driver was bitten by a dog and applied to ACC, the manager pressed him to...

Ziyu Xiao and Youtian Yang, and Limei Liu v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 222 - delivery drivers cut off via app/WhatsApp after complaints; unjustified dismissals and disadvantage; $54,500 ordered

Three courier/warehouse workers were found to be employees in an earlier preliminary decision. In this follow-up, the ERA held two drivers were unjustifiably dismissed when they were blocked from the dispatch app after one complained about a manager's verbal abuse, and a third worker was...

ZiGen Wong v NZAT Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 193 - employee status found despite no visa; $18,187.50 wage arrears + $1,455 holiday pay; constructive dismissal upheld

A labourer worked regular 7am-5pm hours at $25/hour but was not paid for 17 weeks. The employer denied knowing him and did not participate. Applying s 6 and the Bryson control/integration/economic reality tests, the ERA found he was a permanent employee, calculated wage arrears at $18,187.50...

Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191 - unsigned seasonal fixed term not enforceable; dismissal by WhatsApp; $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement

A chef at the Mussel Pot in Havelock worked under seasonal winter shutdowns and was given unsigned fixed term agreements that did not comply with s 66. After the 2024 shutdown, the employer's WhatsApp communications indicated she was no longer required, and she discovered recruiting posts for a...

Browse topics