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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics