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
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

A senior journalist/editor with 18 years at Radio Waatea was made redundant after a restructure merging English and Maori newsroom functions. The ERA accepted the restructure had genuine business reasons, but held the redundancy dismissal unjustified because key proposal information was not fairly shared, the employee was not clearly told his role was at risk until the termination day, and redeployment options were not consulted on. Orders: $24,230.77 lost wages (plus interest and KiwiSaver), $19,000 compensation, and a $1,500 Wages Protection Act penalty (half to the employee).

Browse topics