Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695

ERA Home Limited argued that Xuefeng Yang never became its employee. The Employment Relations Authority rejected that position: there was a signed employment agreement, the agreed visa and arrival conditions had been met, Mr Yang was met at Auckland Airport by an ERA Home employee and he performed construction work at an ERA Home site. His summary dismissal and underpayment therefore gave rise to personal-grievance remedies.

Recruited from China under an Accredited Employer Work Visa

Mr Yang was recruited from China to work in New Zealand and signed an individual employment agreement on 3 May 2023. The agreement recorded a construction role at $29.66 per hour with at least 30 hours each week. He obtained the relevant visa, arrived in New Zealand in June 2023 and was met at Auckland Airport by an employee of ERA Home.

Mr Yang then worked at an ERA Home construction site. He said he was paid $18 per hour in cash rather than the contractual rate and was dismissed about 20 days later after being told he was not obeying instructions. ERA Home's director said he had not known Mr Yang was working for the company and denied an employment relationship had formed.

The Authority found an employment relationship existed

Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act includes a person intending to work where work has been offered and accepted as employment. The conditions in the signed agreement had been met: visa approval had been obtained and Mr Yang had arrived in New Zealand within the relevant period.

The Authority also relied on what happened in practice. Mr Yang was met at the airport by an ERA Home employee and began work at a site operated by the company. He therefore came within the statutory definition of employee and could pursue personal-grievance and employment-standard claims.

Underpayment and summary dismissal

ERA Home did not provide the employment on the agreed terms, did not pay Mr Yang at the contractual hourly rate or in the agreed manner, and ended his employment without a disciplinary or dismissal process. The Authority found those actions breached the employment agreement and the duty of good faith.

For the personal grievance, ERA Home had not investigated the alleged problem, put concerns to Mr Yang, allowed him to respond or genuinely considered any explanation. The dismissal therefore failed the section 103A justification test. Paying him below the agreed rate also established unjustified disadvantage.

Unlawful premium claim not proved

Mr Yang had paid a substantial amount to a Chinese agency in connection with the employment opportunity and visa process. However, the Authority found insufficient evidence that ERA Home, its director or anyone acting with their authority sought, received or benefited from that payment. The separate unlawful-premium claim therefore failed.

The result is an important distinction: the employee succeeded on employment status, dismissal, underpayment and good faith, but the Authority did not infer an unlawful premium merely from the existence of an overseas agency payment.

Remedies and penalty

Mr Yang remained in New Zealand for nine weeks after the dismissal before returning to China. The Authority awarded $8,008.20 in lost wages for that period, based on 30 hours per week at the contractual rate, plus 8 percent annual holiday pay. It also awarded $23,000 compensation for the harm caused by the personal grievances.

ERA Home was ordered to pay a $3,000 penalty to the Crown for the globalised breach of the employment agreement and good-faith obligations. Claims seeking to make the director personally liable were not established on the evidence before the Authority.

Why this case matters

Yang v ERA Home is particularly useful where an employer later disputes that a worker was ever an employee. A signed agreement, visa arrangements, onboarding conduct, workplace evidence, messages and proof of actual work can all be important in establishing the true relationship.

Migrant employees should preserve copies of the signed agreement, visa documents, recruitment communications, payment records, site photographs, rosters and messages with anyone acting for the employer. Those records can be critical where payroll records are missing or the relationship itself is denied.

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.