ClickCease

WEI v LIU and Anor [2025] NZERA 80 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Mr Wei claimed the respondents failed to address this matter in an appropriate manner, which he alleged led to him being subjected to a (quoted wording omitted) in the workplace by Ms Gong on 13...


WEI v LIU and Anor [2025] NZERA 80

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 80
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: WEI v LIU and Anor
  • Authority member: Emma Parsons
  • Investigation meeting: 5 February 2025 (Auckland)
  • Determination date: 14 February 2025
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal issues addressed; remedies and any costs/interest determined in the decision.

Story in plain English

This decision deals with an unjustified dismissal claim and the Authority's findings and remedies.

In summary, Mr Wei claimed the respondents failed to address this matter in an appropriate manner, which he alleged led to him being subjected to a (quoted wording omitted) in the workplace by Ms Gong on 13 December 2023 (the altercation). After that, The Authority's investigation [9] The Authority conducted an in-person investigation meeting (IM) on 7 November 2024 in Auckland. Later, The Authority carefully reviewed CCTV footage taken inside the workplace of the 13 December 2023 incident (the altercation in which Mr Wei claimed Ms Gong had assaulted him, and Ms Gong claimed Mr Wei had assaulted her). The determination records that Mr Wei was excitable during the Authority's investigation meeting, pointing aggressively at the interpreter (who reported feeling afraid), jumping out of his seat more than once, and speaking in a loud agitated tone. The Authority notes that Mr Liu is ordered to pay Mr Wei $15,000 distress compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to recognise the hurt, humiliation and distress the procedural unfairness of his dismissal has caused him. Ultimately, Accordingly, Mr Wei's distress compensation of $15,000.00 needed to be reduced by $12,000.00 under s 124 of the Act, to reflect his contribution to the situation that resulted in his dismissal personal grievance claim. In the end, Mr Liu constructively dismissed Mr Wei by failing to provide him with any work after 13 December 2023.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are WEI (employee) and LIU and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: .
  • Authority member: .

Key events described

  • Mr Wei claimed the respondents failed to address this matter in an appropriate manner, which he alleged led to him being subjected to a (quoted wording omitted) in the workplace by Ms Gong on 13 December 2023 (the altercation).
  • The Authority's investigation [9] The Authority conducted an in-person investigation meeting (IM) on 7 November 2024 in Auckland.
  • The Authority carefully reviewed CCTV footage taken inside the workplace of the 13 December 2023 incident (the altercation in which Mr Wei claimed Ms Gong had assaulted him, and Ms Gong claimed Mr Wei had assaulted her).
  • Mr Wei was excitable during the Authority's investigation meeting, pointing aggressively at the interpreter (who reported feeling afraid), jumping out of his seat more than once, and speaking in a loud agitated tone.
  • Mr Liu is ordered to pay Mr Wei $15,000 distress compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to recognise the hurt, humiliation and distress the procedural unfairness of his dismissal has caused him.
  • Accordingly, Mr Wei's distress compensation of $15,000.00 needed to be reduced by $12,000.00 under s 124 of the Act, to reflect his contribution to the situation that resulted in his dismissal personal grievance claim.
  • Mr Liu constructively dismissed Mr Wei by failing to provide him with any work after 13 December 2023.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $3,000.00
  • Lost wages / arrears: $3,393.46
  • Reimbursement: $71.55
  • Other payments: $6,887.63

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 articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

In an anonymised retail case, the ERA found that XSH unjustifiably disadvantaged KCY by failing to follow up her bullying complaint, placing her on paid special leave without proper consultation, and directing an immediate store transfer as a fait accompli. Her summary dismissal over expired promotional gifts and a back-office passcode was also unjustified because relevant evidence of common store practice and staff deception was not properly investigated. Compensation totalled $40,000 after contribution reductions, with further lost-remuneration and annual-leave orders.

Sione Afimeimounga v NPD Limited [2026] NZERA 506 - tanker driver constructively and unjustifiably dismissed

NPD failed for years to meaningfully address tanker driver Sione Afimeimounga's workload, scheduling and health and safety concerns. After he resigned on extended notice, NPD dismissed him for serious misconduct based on selected messages from a provocative exchange with another driver. The ERA found constructive dismissal, unjustified summary dismissal and unjustified suspension. NPD was ordered to pay $13,608 gross lost wages, $22,500 compensation after 10 percent contribution, and a $4,000 records penalty.

Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited [2026] NZERA 509 - employer stopped paying founder to force resignation

EverEdge Global Limited stopped paying founder and CEO Paul Adams while he continued working from Amsterdam, ignored his repeated requests for payment, and advanced multiple inconsistent explanations later. The ERA found EverEdge deliberately withheld salary to pressure him to resign, amounting to unjustified constructive dismissal. Awards totalled $267,640.69, including salary arrears, six months' lost remuneration, KiwiSaver, $30,000 compensation and a $7,500 good-faith penalty.

Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo v Kaur Queens Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 507 - taxi driver was an employee and constructively dismissed

Although the written agreement called Mr Takaloo an independent contractor, the ERA found that the real nature of his relationship with Kaur Queens Trading Limited was employment. Withholding his final wages, verbal abuse, aggressive conduct and cancelling his access amounted to unjustified constructive dismissal. The company was ordered to pay $2,045 wages, $286.04 holiday pay, $12,038 lost remuneration and $7,500 compensation.

Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

Carol Chesmar had worked for Rooney Earthmoving Limited for more than nine years when her labourer position was disestablished. The ERA accepted that the redundancy was not a sham and that Rooney Earthmoving had genuine work and financial concerns. However, it withheld relevant financial and operational information, failed to consult over the end of Mrs Chesmar's Taiko landfill deployment, had effectively decided by the start of consultation that her role would go, and gave her no meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome. The dismissal was unjustified. Rooney Earthmoving was ordered to pay $14,471.60 gross lost remuneration and $25,000 compensation.

Browse topics