ClickCease

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).


Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about an employer trying to rely on a fixed-term clause to end employment, and why the Authority found the dismissal was unjustified. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 56
  • Parties: Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Authority member: Marija Urlich
  • Investigation meeting: 8 December 2025
  • Determination date: 2 February 2026
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld. Fixed-term clause could not be relied on. Employer counterclaim dismissed. Remedies ordered; costs reserved.
  • Key orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (payable within 21 days of the determination date).

What happened

Mr Jiang worked for Smartrade Limited as an office clerk from 2 October 2023 until his employment ended on 11 December 2024.

The written employment agreement was not signed until 7 December 2023 (about two months after he started). It recorded a full-time Monday to Friday role at $1,100 gross per week, and said the agreement may be terminated on 11 December 2024 by either party giving two weeks' written notice.

On 11 November 2024 the owner/manager emailed Mr Jiang advising the business would not renew his employment contract when it expired on 11 December 2024, referring to unexpectedly low market conditions and insufficient sales to cover expenses including wages.

Mr Jiang raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. The employer defended the claim by saying the employment was always a fixed term and that it was simply not renewed at expiry. The employer also raised a counterclaim alleging various breaches and seeking orders against Mr Jiang.

What the Authority had to decide

  • Was Mr Jiang unjustifiably dismissed?
  • If so, what remedies should be awarded (lost wages and compensation)?
  • Was the employer's counterclaim established?

Key findings in plain English

  • The Authority held the employer could not lawfully rely on the fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements for a fixed term were not met.
  • There was insufficient evidence that the employer had genuine reasons (based on reasonable grounds) for a fixed term that were communicated to and agreed with Mr Jiang before the agreement was entered.
  • The written agreement recorded an end date but did not record the reasons for a fixed term, which is a mandatory requirement.
  • Because the fixed term was not lawful, ending the employment by notice was a dismissal, and the employer was required to run a fair process.
  • Mr Jiang was not given an opportunity to comment on the proposal to end his employment, and the Authority held the dismissal was not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances (s 103A).
  • The employer's counterclaim was rejected. Performance-type allegations could have been dealt with during employment using ordinary processes, and the alleged property/confidentiality/other issues were not proved to the required standard.

Orders and payments

  • Within 21 days of the determination date, the employer was ordered to pay $12,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i)).
  • Within 21 days of the determination date, the employer was ordered to pay $15,600 gross lost wages (13 weeks at $1,200 per week) as reimbursement (s 123(1)(b)).
  • Contribution was not applied (no blameworthy contribution by the employee).
  • Costs were reserved, with a timetable for any costs memorandum (applicant within 21 days; respondent reply within 14 days of service).

Why this case matters

  • Fixed-term agreements are technical. It is not enough to write an end date - the employer must have genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds, those reasons must be communicated and agreed before the term is entered, and the reasons must be recorded in the agreement.
  • If a fixed term is not lawful, ending the employment at the nominated end date can still be treated as a dismissal at the initiative of the employer - and a fair process is required.
  • Counterclaims are not a substitute for ordinary employment processes. If an employer says there were performance or misconduct issues, the Authority will look at whether those were raised and dealt with properly at the time.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Todd Dormer v Rhino-Rack New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 353 - ambiguous commission clause, Sales Commission Scheme, and unjustified disadvantage

Todd Dormer claimed Rhino-Rack owed him commission because his employment agreement said only "10% paid quarterly". He argued that meant 10 percent of sales or gross margin. Rhino-Rack said the company-wide Sales Commission Scheme applied. The ERA found the wording was badly drafted and Rhino-Rack had unjustifiably disadvantaged Mr Dormer by failing to give him clear written details of the scheme, but rejected the claim that he was entitled to 10 percent of gross margin. Rhino-Rack was ordered to pay $14,000 compensation, with costs reserved.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Cameron Keen v Prestige Paving NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 344 - unjustified dismissal after employer stopped providing work and pay

Cameron Keen worked for Prestige Paving NZ Limited as a labourer. After a Christmas closedown, the employer failed to provide work, failed to pay him, placed him on leave without pay without his request, and then stopped communicating. The ERA found Mr Keen was unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dismissed. Prestige was ordered to pay $12,000 compensation, $19,460.82 unpaid and lost wages, $1,556.86 holiday pay, and $3,000 costs...

Stephen Nunn v Port Nicholson Fisheries LP [2026] NZERA 345 - unjustified dismissal after crayfish compliance investigations

Stephen Nunn was dismissed without notice by Port Nicholson Fisheries LP after two employment investigations in quick succession about seafood compliance, documentation, and handling of live crayfish. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because PNF failed to genuinely consider his explanations, failed to give him key information including CCTV footage, relied on a flawed final written warning, and failed to consider alternatives to dismissal. PNF was ordered to pay $20,000 compensation, three months lost wages, four weeks notice, and public holiday arrears...

Fiona Scott v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 342 - casual bus driver found to be permanent and unjustifiably dismissed

Fiona Scott was employed by Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited on a casual agreement, but the ERA found the real nature of the relationship had evolved into permanent employment. After a route deviation for a toilet break, two scheduled shifts were removed and no further shifts were offered. The ERA found this amounted to unjustified dismissal and ordered $10,000 compensation and $12,870 gross lost wages...

Regina Rasheed v Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls [2026] NZERA 326 - school principal reinstated after unjustified dismissal

Regina Rasheed was principal of Zayed College for Girls for about 14 years before being dismissed by the Commissioner in June 2025. The ERA found unjustified disadvantage, unjustified suspension, unjustified dismissal, breaches of the collective agreement and good faith, and ordered reinstatement, lost wages, 23 days sick leave reimbursement, $40,000 compensation, and a Trust penalty...

Browse topics