Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699

Wenpeng Yu worked as a Chinese Cuisine Chef for Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd for only one week. The restaurant said he abandoned his employment, but the Employment Relations Authority preferred Mr Yu's evidence that he had been dismissed after the employer became unhappy with his productivity. WeChat messages were important in resolving what had actually happened.

A one-week employment relationship

Mr Yu was a work-visa holder recruited as a chef after discussions conducted through WeChat. He signed an individual employment agreement on 24 April 2024 providing for at least 30 hours per week at $29.66 per hour and began work on 20 May. There was no 90-day trial clause.

He worked until 26 May and received $1,400 net in cash. The restaurant later maintained that Mr Yu had stopped attending and abandoned the employment. Mr Yu said he had been dismissed.

WeChat messages supported the dismissal account

Contemporaneous WeChat messages were important. On 28 May Mr Yu referred to having been dismissed and sought to return for a discussion. The employer-side response did not correct that description, and later messages inviting him to return to work were inconsistent with a clear abandonment of employment.

The respondents also said attempts had been made to contact Mr Yu, but the claimed calls were not supported by records. On the evidence as a whole, the Authority found the employment had been ended by the employer rather than abandoned by Mr Yu.

Productivity concerns were never put to him

The Authority found the restaurant had been dissatisfied with Mr Yu's productivity. But those concerns had not been properly communicated to him before his employment ended. He was therefore denied the information and opportunity to respond required by good faith and section 103A.

The dismissal was unjustified even though the employment had lasted only one week. Short service does not remove the obligation to act fairly where there is no valid statutory trial period being relied on.

Minimum-wage claim was not established

Mr Yu said he had worked 74 hours in the week, which would have produced an effective hourly rate below the minimum wage. The restaurant said he worked 63 hours. The Authority accepted the employer's evidence on this issue because the cash payment was consistent with 63 hours at the contractual rate after deductions and Mr Yu did not have written records establishing the higher figure.

The Minimum Wage Act claim therefore failed, although the dismissal claim succeeded. This illustrates the importance of keeping contemporaneous records of hours actually worked, particularly where payment is made in cash.

Remedies

Mr Yu was awarded $7,500 compensation for hurt and humiliation. He actively looked for other work and resumed employment in July 2024, leading to an award of four weeks' lost wages at the guaranteed 30 hours per week: $3,559.20. The employer was also ordered to pay 8 percent annual holiday pay on Mr Yu's gross wages.

The Authority declined to make the director personally liable for the modest holiday-pay amount and reserved costs.

Why this case matters

Yu v Golden Rooster is useful in disputes about whether an employee resigned, abandoned employment or was actually dismissed. Messages written at the time can carry much more weight than later labels adopted once a dispute has started.

Employees should keep texts, WeChat or WhatsApp messages, call records, rosters and any communications about returning to work. Those records can establish whether the employer in fact sent the employee away and what reason was operating at the time.

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.