Ziyu Xiao and Youtian Yang, and Limei Liu v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 222

This determination follows an earlier preliminary decision confirming that the three applicants were employees. The Employment Relations Authority then determined whether they were unjustifiably dismissed (and for Ms Liu, also unjustifiably disadvantaged), after Fast Horse Express stopped providing work by cutting off access to its work allocation systems. The respondent did not attend the investigation meeting and filed no evidence for the merits stage. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background and the end of work

Ms Xiao - complaint after verbal abuse, then locked out of the driver app

Ms Xiao worked full-time as a delivery driver for about six months (13 September 2023 to 18 March 2024). Drivers collected parcels from the Rosebank Road warehouse and were allocated work through the company's smartphone app. After an evening altercation with her manager (Mr Qi) about moving parcels across a busy road, Ms Xiao said she was verbally abused. She complained the next day and asked for mediation. Two days after the incident, she was blocked from the app and could no longer receive work.

Mr Yang - access blocked as well

Mr Yang (Ms Xiao's husband) also worked as a delivery driver (January to March 2024). He said his access to the app was blocked without explanation, and he attributed this to retaliation connected with Ms Xiao's complaint.

Ms Liu - threatened with suspension, then removed from WhatsApp and given no further work

Ms Liu worked as a delivery driver (12 December 2023 to 22 February 2024) and then as a warehouse worker (22 February to 12 March 2024), after the company could not provide 40 hours per week driving.

Ms Liu said she was threatened with suspension and "retraining" after she suggested a change to delivery scheduling that she thought would improve efficiency. She also challenged a workplace practice involving accredited work-visa holders working as delivery drivers and being paid in cash, which reduced work available to resident visa holders. After raising that issue, Ms Liu was removed from the company's WhatsApp group chat on 4 March 2024 and was offered no further warehouse work. She and her husband later moved to Australia (11 June 2024).

Legal test and findings

The Authority applied s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether the employer's actions and how it acted were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time. The employer filed no evidence for the merits investigation and did not attend the hearing, so the Authority determined the claims on the applicants' evidence.

• Ms Xiao: blocking access to the work allocation app shortly after her complaint was treated as an unjustified dismissal.
• Mr Yang: blocking his access to the app without explanation was also treated as an unjustified dismissal.
• Ms Liu: threats of suspension/"retraining" were held to be unjustified disadvantage, and removing her from the WhatsApp work group and providing no further work was treated as an unjustified dismissal.

The determination noted the applicants' allegations about cash payments to visa holders, and observed that if true this would undermine immigration and tax compliance. However, because the employer did not engage, the Authority said it could not investigate that broader allegation in this proceeding.

Remedies and amounts ordered

After finding unjustified dismissal (and for Ms Liu, unjustified disadvantage), the Authority awarded reimbursement (lost remuneration) under s 128 and compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i). No contribution reductions were made under s 124.

How the Authority approached lost remuneration

• Ms Xiao: awarded three weeks lost wages, using $35 per hour for a full-time 40 hour week (VIP driver rate referenced in the app Q&A).
• Mr Yang: lost remuneration calculated from Inland Revenue income information for his short employment period, apportioned over three months under s 128(2).
• Ms Liu: lost remuneration assessed at $22.70 per hour for 10 hours per week for 12 weeks, reflecting her warehouse role, limited hours, and personal circumstances.

Compensation

The Authority assessed the personal impact, including the stress of both spouses being without work at the same time and the absence of immediate family support in New Zealand. Compensation was individualised for Ms Xiao and Mr Yang. For Ms Liu, compensation was awarded as a global figure across both unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.

Costs

The Authority determined costs in the same decision. It applied the notional tariff and awarded $4,500 as a reasonable contribution to the applicants' actual costs. The determination states the amount is inclusive of all filing fees paid to the Authority.

Practical takeaways

• Cutting off work through apps can still be dismissal: blocking access to a work allocation app or work group chat can be treated as ending employment.
• Retaliation risk: adverse action after a complaint (or connected to a complaint) is high-risk and likely to fail s 103A scrutiny.
• Threats of suspension can be unjustified disadvantage: even if a dismissal does not occur immediately, threats and process failures can amount to disadvantage.
• Non-participation is usually fatal: when an employer files no evidence and does not attend, the Authority may accept the employee evidence and make substantial orders.

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.