ClickCease

Mr Wei's claims followed a workplace altercation and the employer's response to it, including the eventual end of his employment and disputed wage-related entitlements. CCTV footage and conflicting accounts of the incident were central to the ERA investigation.

The short answer

The ERA upheld employment claims against the respondent and made orders for compensation, lost remuneration and other employment entitlements. The determination included a $15,000 distress-compensation award and reimbursement of the filing fee, together with wage-related sums.


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 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