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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics