ClickCease

Yoga Limited ultimately admitted that Xiaomeng Feng's dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine lost wages, compensation, contribution and a claimed good-faith penalty. The employer relied on performance and communication concerns to seek a reduction.

The short answer

The ERA awarded $8,000 compensation and $4,400 lost wages. It held the identified performance and communication issues were not sufficiently blameworthy to justify a contribution reduction, and it declined the separate good-faith penalty.


Xiaomeng Feng v Yoga Limited [2025] NZERA 709

Yoga Limited ultimately accepted that Xiaomeng Feng had been unjustifiably dismissed. The ERA therefore focused on remedies, contribution and the claimed good-faith penalty. Ms Feng received $8,000 compensation and $4,400 lost wages, with no reduction for contribution.

At a glance

  • Authority member: Helen van Druten
  • Investigation: 7 August 2025, Auckland
  • Determination: 6 November 2025
  • Dismissal: admitted to be unjustified
  • Compensation: $8,000
  • Lost wages: $4,400
  • Contribution: none
  • Good-faith penalty: declined

Background

Ms Feng was employed under a studio-management, yoga and Pilates teaching apprenticeship supported by the Mana in Mahi programme. A studio move in March 2024 became the immediate catalyst for the end of the employment relationship. The employer later accepted in its amended reply that the dismissal was unjustified.

Compensation and lost wages

The Authority accepted that the sudden dismissal had a real emotional impact, particularly in the first few weeks, but assessed the harm at the lower end of comparable cases. Compensation of $8,000 was awarded. Ms Feng obtained new employment within about four weeks, and the employer accepted $4,400 as the appropriate lost-wages figure for that period.

No contribution reduction

There was evidence of a mismatch between the employer's expectations of Ms Feng as a studio manager and Ms Feng's understanding of her role. The Authority regarded this as miscommunication rather than blameworthy conduct that contributed to the personal grievance, so no s 124 reduction was made.

Good-faith penalty declined

The Authority noted problems in the management of the employment relationship but was not satisfied that the statutory threshold for a penalty was met. The dismissal appeared to have been driven by frustration rather than conduct of the type required for a penalty under s 4A.

Practical point: contribution is not automatic merely because an employer had genuine performance concerns. The question is whether the employee engaged in culpable or blameworthy conduct that contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance.

Read the determination

Open [2025] NZERA 709 (PDF)


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz. This summary is general information, not legal advice.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics