WANG v STEEL MASTER CO. LTD [2025] NZERA 457

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Mr Wang says that he was dismissed and has made grievance claims for unjustified dismissal and disadvantages during his employment including bullying and harassment, unilateral shift changes and migrant exploitation. After that, Steel Master says that these were discussed in a meeting on 19 April 2024 then Mr Wang resigned. Later, They both agreed that a meeting took place between Mr Wang and Mr Xu on 19 or 20 April 2024 where Steel Master told Mr Wang the concerns about his performance. The determination records that Ending of employment [10] For an unjustified dismissal grievance, the first matter to determine is whether Mr Wang's employment ended because of an action by the employer or whether Mr Wang chose to resign for other reasons. The Authority notes that Steel Master's account of the 19/20 April 2024 meeting is that Mr Xu asked Mr Wang to meet formally to discuss serious performance concerns. Ultimately, During that meeting, Mr Wang indicated that he wanted to resign and Mr Xu accepted that resignation. In the end, Steel Master further submitted that Mr Wang had requested an employment certificate on 24 April 2024 and this was evidence of his earlier intent to resign.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are WANG (employee) and STEEL MASTER CO. LTD (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 28 April 2025.
• Authority member: Helen van Druten.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Mr Wang says that he was dismissed and has made grievance claims for unjustified dismissal and disadvantages during his employment including bullying and harassment, unilateral shift changes and migrant exploitation.
• Steel Master says that these were discussed in a meeting on 19 April 2024 then Mr Wang resigned.
• They both agreed that a meeting took place between Mr Wang and Mr Xu on 19 or 20 April 2024 where Steel Master told Mr Wang the concerns about his performance.
• Ending of employment [10] For an unjustified dismissal grievance, the first matter to determine is whether Mr Wang's employment ended because of an action by the employer or whether Mr Wang chose to resign for other reasons.
• Steel Master's account of the 19/20 April 2024 meeting is that Mr Xu asked Mr Wang to meet formally to discuss serious performance concerns.
• During that meeting, Mr Wang indicated that he wanted to resign and Mr Xu accepted that resignation.
• Steel Master further submitted that Mr Wang had requested an employment certificate on 24 April 2024 and this was evidence of his earlier intent to resign.
• Mr Wang disputed that he resigned at either meeting and Steel Master maintained that he said he was going to resign and seek other opportunities.
• Mr Wang says that he was told of his dismissal on 20 April 2024.
• Payment for notice period dismissal [28] Having established that Mr Wang's four-week notice period began on 22 April 2024 (using the email from Steel Master to Immigration New Zealand as the best available evidence), the next step is to consider whether Mr Wang's notice period was correctly paid.
• Failure to provide reasons for his dismissal [45] The Act requires an employer to provide reasons for a dismissal to the employee where that employee requests it.5 Mr Wang made the request in his personal grievance letter of 23 June 2024 and did not receive any statement from Steel Master.
• Mr Wang knew the reason for his dismissal as he was given a list of his errors at the 19/20 April 2024 meeting.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $11,000
• 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

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.