ClickCease

Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.

The short answer

The ERA found the employment ended by the employer's action, not resignation, and the dismissal was unjustified. Mr Wang received $11,000 compensation, eight weeks' lost wages and leave arrears.


Wang v Steel Master Co Ltd [2025] NZERA 457

Steel Master said Mr Wang resigned. The ERA disagreed, finding the employment ended by the employer's action and that the dismissal was unjustified.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 457
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Authority member: Helen van Druten
  • Investigation meeting: 28 April 2025
  • Main outcome: Dismissal, not resignation; unjustified dismissal established.

Dismissal or resignation?

The first issue was whether Mr Wang had resigned during meetings about performance concerns. There was no written resignation. The Authority found the evidence showed Steel Master gave Mr Wang a choice to find another job or be "unilaterally dismissed". An intention to resign is not the same as an actual resignation, and the Authority found termination was at the employer's initiative.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

Steel Master had legitimate performance concerns, but those concerns did not remove the need for a fair process. The Authority found the employer had not sufficiently substantiated the concerns or followed the steps expected of a fair and reasonable employer before dismissal. It also failed to provide a statement of reasons after Mr Wang requested one.

Remedies

  • Compensation: $11,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
  • Lost wages: the equivalent of 8 weeks' wages plus 8% holiday entitlements.
  • Sick leave: $888.32 gross plus interest.
  • Annual leave: $3,555.29 gross plus interest.
  • Filing fee: $71.55.
  • Contribution: no reduction. The performance concerns did not establish blameworthy contribution to the grievance.
  • Costs: reserved.

Why the case matters

  • An employee discussing departure or looking for another job does not necessarily amount to a resignation.
  • Where the employer presents termination as inevitable, the Authority may find the ending was a dismissal.
  • Legitimate performance concerns still require a procedurally fair and substantively justified response.
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
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.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics