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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

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.

Browse topics