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
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