ClickCease

Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.

The short answer

The ERA found employer conduct had caused an unjustified constructive dismissal and awarded $13,324.80 lost remuneration and $15,000 compensation. Costs were reserved.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Constructive Dismissal
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Browse topics