Xiaomeng (Fiona) Feng v Yoga Limited [2025] NZERA 709 - Unjustified dismissal conceded, remedies set at $12,400, no penalty

Quick facts

• Citation: [2025] NZERA 709
• Registry: Auckland
• Member: Helen van Druten
• Investigation meeting: 7 August 2025
• Determination date: 6 November 2025
• Applicant: Xiaomeng (Fiona) Feng
• Respondent: Yoga Limited

What the case was about

Ms Feng raised an employment relationship problem including a personal grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, following termination of her employment on 6 March 2024. In an amended statement of reply (lodged 28 July 2025), Yoga Limited's director acknowledged that Ms Feng was unjustifiably dismissed. The employer still opposed the remedies claimed and opposed any good faith penalty.

The ERA recorded it was no longer necessary to determine the unjustified disadvantage claim because it arose from the same facts as the dismissal claim and was pleaded in the alternative. The determination therefore focused on remedies, contribution, penalty, and costs.

Background: apprenticeship role and the studio move

Ms Feng was employed by Yoga Limited from 6 June 2023 as a Studio Management, Yoga and Pilates Teacher Apprenticeship under the Mana in Mahi programme, supported by the Ministry of Social Development. The employment agreement recorded 30 hours per week.

The studio moved premises on 4 March 2024. Ms Feng described the move as chaotic. Ms Feng said she was dismissed by email on the Wednesday following the move, for failing to follow a reasonable instruction. The director said the studio move was the final stage in a number of performance issues.

What the ERA awarded (remedies)

How the ERA approached compensation

The ERA accepted the primary impact claimed was emotional. The Member considered comparator cases and noted that the degree of harm is not measured by timeframe alone. The ERA considered Ms Feng experienced a real and meaningful impact in the initial weeks (supported by an impact witness), but there was no evidence of serious and ongoing consequences. The ERA assessed $8,000 as an appropriate award.

Lost wages and mitigation

The employer accepted Ms Feng lost remuneration and proposed $4,400 for the period 6 March 2024 to 4 April 2024. The ERA recorded Ms Feng obtained new employment within four weeks and awarded $4,400 lost wages (four weeks).

Contribution and penalty

• Contributory conduct: The ERA considered whether Ms Feng's conduct contributed to the situation (s 124), but found the disconnect around the studio move was a miscommunication and did not justify reducing remedies.
• Penalty / good faith: Although a penalty was sought, the ERA found the statutory threshold for a penalty was not met and declined to award a penalty.

Costs

Costs were reserved. The ERA encouraged the parties to resolve costs and set a timetable for a costs memorandum (28 days for the applicant, then 14 days for any reply). The ERA noted costs are generally assessed on the usual daily tariff basis unless an adjustment is justified.