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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics