Xiaoshuai Huang v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 224

This determination deals with an "employee vs contractor" dispute in the courier industry, and a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal by constructive dismissal. The employer did not appear at the investigation meeting, and the Authority proceeded on the evidence available. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Huang worked for Fast Horse Limited (trading as Fast Horse Express), a parcel courier business in Auckland. He first worked in the warehouse and later moved into full-time delivery work. The dispute arose after he suffered a dog bite during a delivery run and sought ACC cover.

The respondent filed an early statement in reply but then did not participate further and did not attend the investigation meeting. The Authority proceeded under the Second Schedule process in the respondent's absence.

Employee vs contractor: why the "contractor" label failed

The Authority assessed employee status under s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the common law tests (control, integration, and whether the person was working on their own account). The evidence showed extensive app-based control similar to the Authority's earlier Fast Horse Express decision in Xiao, Yang & Liu v Fast Horse Express [2025] NZERA 644.

Key control features recorded in the determination included:

• Work was allocated through the company's app, which generated delivery routes and tracked performance.
• The company controlled delivery areas and sequencing, and enforced photo requirements and delivery timing rules via chat messages.
• Payment deductions and penalties were automatically applied for late returns or other non-compliance, including a $35 deduction for non-compliant proof-of-delivery photos.
• The ability to "reject" work was not real in practice because rejection reduced pay rates/acceptance levels, and the work pattern left no realistic scope to work elsewhere.
• Subcontracting was not realistic because the app did not allow multi-device logins, and deliveries were tied to the driver's account.

On that evidence, the Authority found the real relationship was employment.

What happened after the dog bite and ACC application

The determination records that Mr Huang was bitten by a dog while delivering a parcel, obtained medical treatment, and received medical certification excusing him from work. He applied to ACC for worker compensation.

The company's manager asserted that by registering with the app Mr Huang had confirmed contractor status and required him to withdraw the ACC claim. Mr Huang refused, believing he was entitled to ACC cover as an employee. Shortly afterwards, he was blocked from the company messaging group and stopped receiving work through the app.

Why this amounted to constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal focuses on whether the employer's conduct left the employee with no real choice but to end the relationship. Here, once employee status was established, the Authority treated the pressure to withdraw an ACC claim and the effective removal of access to the app (the mechanism for receiving work) as conduct that a fair and reasonable employer would not have undertaken.

The Authority held it was reasonably foreseeable that cutting off access to work would force the employee to look for work elsewhere. The personal grievance for unjustified constructive dismissal was upheld.

Remedies and orders

Lost remuneration was assessed using an average weekly payment figure derived from available payment evidence (because no payslip information was provided). Compensation was awarded for hurt and humiliation. No contribution reduction was made.

Practical takeaways

• App-based control is a major employee-status signal: allocation, routing, monitoring, penalties and pay deductions can outweigh contractor wording.
• Cutting off work can be constructive dismissal: blocking access to the system used to allocate work can leave an employee with no realistic option but to find other work.
• Non-participation carries risk: where the respondent does not attend or provide records, the Authority may determine issues on the evidence available.
• Remedies can include both lost remuneration and compensation: lost remuneration is typically assessed on available earnings evidence; compensation addresses the personal impact.

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.