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
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

Prasath Balachandariyar was made redundant after Civtec Limited scored him too low for roles in a new structure. The ERA accepted Civtec had a genuine business reason and ran a procedurally fair consultation process, but found the selection scoring was substantively unfair. Civtec had marked him down because of bronchial asthma, a temporary workplace wrist injury, a wrongly used Record of Conversation and sick leave. The dismissal was unjustified, the wrist injury support was an unjustified disadvantage, and $37,534 was ordered...

Deborah Eyles v Bottlers Limited [2026] NZERA 300 - no redundancy process, unexplained stand down and dismissal; $20,000 compensation ordered

Deborah Eyles was employed by Bottlers Limited as a permanent part-time supervised contact visit supervisor. After she accidentally sent a negative text about a visiting parent to the visiting parent instead of a colleague, Bottlers stopped rostering her, investigated the incident, then sent a termination letter saying only that it was giving notice under the employment agreement. The ERA rejected the employer's later redundancy explanation, found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, and ordered $20,000 compensation plus wage reimbursement...

Angus Jowitt v Gokula Music Limited [2026] NZERA 297 - music shop worker dismissed by text after coffee dispute; wage arrears, holidays, compensation and penalties ordered

Angus Jowitt was paid $20 cash in hand while the employer accepted the agreed rate was $27 per hour. After a fraught working relationship and an argument over coffee, Gokula Music Limited treated him as having resigned. The ERA found there was no clear resignation, the 21 November text ended the employment, and the dismissal was unjustified. Wage arrears, holiday pay, compensation, lost wages and penalties were ordered...

Mereana Kennedy v Remarkable People Limited [2026] NZERA 296 - account manager constructively dismissed after employer failed to properly respond to safety concerns about candidate; $20,000 compensation ordered

Mereana Kennedy resigned after raising safety concerns about repeated unwanted communications from a candidate she was required to deal with at work. The ERA found Remarkable People Limited failed to properly investigate and respond once its safety plan was not working. The resignation was a constructive dismissal, unjustified under s 103A, with $20,000 compensation and 5.5 weeks lost wages ordered...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Browse topics