WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491

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, Lanquan's employees increased to five when Mr Shen was employed from (at least) October 2023 until his dismissal on 6 August 2024.2 Lanquan had six employees during the three days Ms Wei worked in August/September 2023 and again from 4 March to 7 May 2024, when Ms Wei was also employed on a part-time basis. After that, The minimum wage rate increased on 1 April 2024, so the amount Ms Wei should have bene paid for the rostered shortfall in working hours was $23.00 per hour prior to 1 April 2024 and $23.15 per hour afte r that date. Later, Section 103A(3)(a) of the Act required Lanquan to (quoted wording omitted) the circumstances that resulted in the disestablishment of Ms Wei's position and her redundancy. The determination records that In a redundancy situation that would involve preparing a proposal that identified the employee's ongoing employment was in jeopardy. The Authority notes that Lanquan has established that it had genuine commercial reasons for making Ms Wei redundant, so her dismissal was substantively justified. Ultimately, She is therefore not entitled to an award of lost remuneration, as a fair and proper process would have resulted in her redundancy dismissal being justified in all of the circumstances. In the end, Lanquan is ordered to pay Ms Wei $7,000.00 without deduction, under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to compensate her for the humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings her abrupt and unexpected dismissal had on her.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are WEI (employee) and LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 30 June 2025.
• Authority member: Rachel Larmer.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• When the business was sold on 30 September 2024, Ms Chen and Mr Lin were still working full time but were paid $1,600.00 per fortnight, one part-time employee was paid $25.00 per hour and the other was paid $23.50 per hour.
• From 2 October 2023 Mr Lin reduced his fortnightly fulltime salary from $2,500.00 to $1,600.00 per fortnight (without reducing his working hours) so that money could be used for Mr Shen's wages.
• The minimum wage rate increased on 1 April 2024, so the amount Ms Wei should have bene paid for the rostered shortfall in working hours was $23.00 per hour prior to 1 April 2024 and $23.15 per hour afte r that date.
• Her total gross earnings were $540.50, so she should have been paid $43.24 annual holiday pay when her employment ended on 8 September 2023.
• The total shortfall of one hour per week from 4 March to 5 May 2024 amounted to $207.75 gross (being, $92.00 plus $115.75, as per paragraph [84](d) and (e) above).
• However, Ms Wei: (a) Was not paid for the three days she worked in 2023; (b) Was paid a total of $4,665.15 gross for her second period of employment in 2024; (c) Was not paid any pay in lieu of notice or holiday pay on her notice pay when her employment ended on 7 May 2024.
• Interest is to be paid on Ms Wei's wage arrears of $2,352.91 from 8 May 2024 (the day after her employment ended) until 14 August 2025 (the date of this determination). 20 [95] Interest is to be calculated using the Civil Debt Calculator on the Ministry of Justice website.
• Accordingly, Lanquan is ordered to pay Ms Wei $166.50 interest for the period 8 May 2024 to 14 August 2025.
• Section 103A(3)(a) of the Act required Lanquan to (quoted wording omitted) the circumstances that resulted in the disestablishment of Ms Wei's position and her redundancy.
• In a redundancy situation that would involve preparing a proposal that identified the employee's ongoing employment was in jeopardy.
• She is therefore not entitled to an award of lost remuneration, as a fair and proper process would have resulted in her redundancy dismissal being justified in all of the circumstances.
• Lanquan is ordered to pay Ms Wei $7,000.00 without deduction, under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to compensate her for the humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings her abrupt and unexpected dismissal had on her.
• Ms Wei's matter involved a one-day investigation meeting, so the notional starting tariff is $4,500.00.
• However, that needed to be reduced to $2,250.00 to reflect that Ms Wei's legal fees were incurred prior to the investigation meeting and the daily tariff has been set to include attendance at a one-day investigation meeting.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• Lanquan has established that it had genuine commercial reasons for making Ms Wei redundant, so her dismissal was substantively justified.

Practical takeaways

• Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
• 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.