Yucen Xi v Silvertime Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 580

A store manager summoned Yucen Xi to an evening meeting without explaining its purpose, then gave her a choice between resigning and being fired. He demanded her key, called mall security and described her as already terminated. The Employment Relations Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage.

An unexplained evening meeting

Ms Xi was working a late shift when store manager Mr Wu asked her to attend a meeting at approximately 6 pm. She was not told what the meeting concerned and did not know her employment was at risk.

Ms Xi recorded the meeting. Mr Wu referred to two warnings and gave her two choices: an “amicable separation” through resignation or termination. He warned that dismissal would be “quite ugly” and would appear on her record.

“No, you were fired”

The discussion became heated. Mr Wu demanded Ms Xi's key and said he would send a termination letter. He called mall security, describing Ms Xi as a former employee whom he had already terminated, and told her: “No, you were fired, you get no compensation.” She was subsequently removed from the roster.

Viewed objectively, the words and conduct clearly communicated that Ms Xi's employment had ended. The Authority found that Silvertime dismissed her on 19 July 2025.

No allegations and no fair process

Before the meeting, Silvertime had not identified any allegation, supplied relevant information or advised Ms Xi that dismissal was possible. It did not investigate its concerns or give her a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The dismissal failed the statutory justification test. The absence of advance notice and a fair disciplinary process also affected Ms Xi's employment to her disadvantage because she could not prepare or answer the concerns. Both grievances succeeded, although remedies were not duplicated for the same conduct.

Impact and remedies

After dismissal, Ms Xi contacted a crisis mental-health line and received support through Auckland University. Her sleep and eating were affected, she required counselling and medical assistance, and the dismissal interfered with completion of her master's degree. The Authority awarded $18,000 compensation.

She was also awarded 13 weeks' lost wages totalling $6,240 gross and $650 gross outstanding annual-holiday pay. Penalties were imposed for non-compliance with the Holidays Act and breach of good faith.

No contribution reduction was made. Ms Xi was not dismissed for proven serious misconduct, and no evidence established blameworthy behaviour contributing to the dismissal.

Why this case matters

Xi v Silvertime Trading is a clear example of a forced resignation ultimatum being treated as dismissal. Employers cannot manufacture a voluntary resignation by threatening an uglier termination if the employee refuses. Before disciplinary dismissal, the concerns must be particularised, relevant information disclosed and a genuine opportunity to respond provided.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load, use the button below.

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.