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
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

After a customer incident captured on CCTV, the employer emailed that the matter was serious misconduct and 'will result in instant dismissal effective from 4 June'. The ERA held that was an unequivocal sending away: the worker was dismissed without any fair process and did not abandon...

Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...

Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

A general manager resigned after months of dispute about a short term incentive (STI) clause. He believed he was entitled to 25% of salary, paid quarterly, and that KPIs had to be issued by 1 April. The ERA rejected the constructive dismissal claim because the STI was discretionary and annual,...

Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

A lead developer on a high-pressure KFC app project posted about exhaustion on Instagram and sent blunt messages to a junior developer. FutureCo treated this as serious misconduct and dismissed him. The ERA held the dismissal unjustified, found excessive hours were an unjustified disadvantage,...

Browse topics