ClickCease

Smartrade treated Yifu Jiang's employment as ending under a one-year fixed-term clause, but the agreement did not record genuine reasons satisfying s 66. Mr Jiang was also given no meaningful chance to comment before the employer ended the relationship.

The short answer

The ERA held the fixed-term clause could not lawfully be relied on and the termination was an unjustified dismissal. It awarded $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation, with 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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics