YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 64

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

This decision deals with whether a written warning and dismissal were justified, and what remedies (if any) should follow.

In summary, Mr Yu says the actions of SNL in issuing a written warning unjustifiably disadvantaged him in his employment and that he was unjustifiably dismissed. After that, Mr Yu was unjustifiably disadvantaged by way of written warning and/or unjustifiably dismissed from his employment? ii. Later, It is required to consider on an objective basis whether the actions of SNL and how it acted were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances including at the time of the alleged disadvantage and dismissal. The determination records that I am satisfied Mr Yu was aware of the policy - he signed the policy documents, including the page dealing with personal use of phones and his completed employee induction sheet includes (quoted wording omitted). The Authority notes that The written warning issued to Mr Yu was disciplinary in nature following an inquiry into his conduct - the letter states Mr Yu's employment may be terminated if he continues not to follow SNL's policies and procedures. Ultimately, The warning letter does not record the decision maker considered the disciplinary policy when it undertook the disciplinary investigation and issued the warning to Mr Yu about his phone use during work time. In the end, SNL's submission is the written warning was clearly justified - the policy about phone use is clear, it was known to Mr Yu and he appears to have accepted in his evidence to the Authority that he used his phone in breach of the policy despite being reminded not to.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are YU (employee) and SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED and Anor (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• Mr Yu says the actions of SNL in issuing a written warning unjustifiably disadvantaged him in his employment and that he was unjustifiably dismissed.
• Mr Yu was unjustifiably disadvantaged by way of written warning and/or unjustifiably dismissed from his employment? ii.
• It is required to consider on an objective basis whether the actions of SNL and how it acted were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances including at the time of the alleged disadvantage and dismissal.
• I am satisfied Mr Yu was aware of the policy - he signed the policy documents, including the page dealing with personal use of phones and his completed employee induction sheet includes (quoted wording omitted).
• The written warning issued to Mr Yu was disciplinary in nature following an inquiry into his conduct - the letter states Mr Yu's employment may be terminated if he continues not to follow SNL's policies and procedures.
• The warning letter does not record the decision maker considered the disciplinary policy when it undertook the disciplinary investigation and issued the warning to Mr Yu about his phone use during work time.
• SNL's submission is the written warning was clearly justified - the policy about phone use is clear, it was known to Mr Yu and he appears to have accepted in his evidence to the Authority that he used his phone in breach of the policy despite being reminded not to.
• The warning caused Mr Yu disadvantage in his employment - he was on notice any further breach of policy could result in his dismissal.
• The circumstances of the dismissal, which include the discussion of 6 October as well as the meeting of 9 October, do not meet the justification test set out at s 103A of Act or the disciplinary process requirements contained in SNL's policy handbook.
• Aside from the written warning, which has been found to be unjustified, there was no performance improvement plan put in place for Mr Yu, as described in the policy handbook or written notice to him that SNL was concerned his refusal to work night shift may put him in breach of the employment agreement.
• Mr Yu's accepted actions in using his phone in the factory was a breach of a policy which The Authority was satisfied he knew and understood.
• The issue concerning his advised inability to work night shift is a factor which has contributed to the circumstances of his dismissal and The Authority found, given he had agreed in the employment agreement to work night shift as required, was a blameworthy factor.

Decision markers

• Remedies [45] Mr Yu has established personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
• The issue concerning his advised inability to work night shift is a factor which has contributed to the circumstances of his dismissal and The Authority found, given he had agreed in the employment agreement to work night shift as required, was a blameworthy factor.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Reimbursement of lost wages: $5,932.00 (gross, five weeks) (plus holiday pay on that sum of $474.56)
• Compensation: $5,000 (for unjustified disadvantage) and $14,000 (for unjustified dismissal) (before any contribution deductions)
• Contribution deductions: 30% on the disadvantage compensation and 20% on the dismissal compensation (see determination for the final figures)
• Interest: Interest on arrears of remuneration was directed to be calculated and paid (s 128 ERA)
• Costs: Reserved

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.