ClickCease

Sly House sent migrant construction worker Yusong Du a WeChat message saying he was unsuitable because he was too slow and lacked strength, then argued he had abandoned the job. The ERA also considered evidence that he had overstated his prior work experience.

The short answer

The ERA rejected abandonment, treated the WeChat message as a dismissal and found the termination unjustified because no fair process was followed. Lost wages and compensation of $24,435.40 were reduced by 50 percent for Mr Du's misleading statements about his experience.


Yusong Du v Sly House Limited [2025] NZERA 765

Yusong Du, a migrant construction worker, was sent a WeChat message saying the job was not suitable because of his lack of strength and slow work pace. Sly House said he had abandoned his employment. The ERA rejected that account, found the message was a dismissal, and held the dismissal unjustified because no disciplinary or contractual termination process had been followed.

At a glance

  • Authority member: Andrew Gane
  • Investigation: 11 February 2025, Auckland
  • Determination: 26 November 2025
  • Lost wages: $14,435.40
  • Compensation: $10,000
  • Contribution: 50% reduction
  • Final remedy: $12,217.70
  • Costs: $4,500 plus $71.55 filing fee

Dismissal rather than abandonment

The employer argued that Mr Du had abandoned his job. The Authority considered that unlikely. There was no evidence of active attempts by the employer to contact him to confirm abandonment, and the WeChat message was clear evidence that Sly House was ending the relationship because it was dissatisfied with his performance.

No disciplinary process was followed and the employer did not use the notice or summary-dismissal provisions in the employment agreement. The dismissal was therefore unjustified.

Remedies and contribution

Mr Du was awarded $14,435.40 in lost wages and $10,000 compensation, a total of $24,435.40 before contribution. The Authority then found Mr Du had misrepresented relevant work experience and was not properly skilled or experienced for the role. That blameworthy conduct contributed to the situation and justified a 50% reduction, leaving $12,217.70 payable.

Employment premium claim failed

Mr Du had paid money to a third-party organisation in China to assist with obtaining work and a visa. The Authority found insufficient evidence connecting those payments to Sly House or its director. The Wages Protection Act premium claim therefore failed.

Contribution point: the employer still had to justify the dismissal and follow a fair process even where the employee had seriously overstated relevant experience. The employee's conduct was dealt with separately through a substantial reduction in remedies.

Read the determination

Open [2025] NZERA 765 (PDF)


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz. This summary is general information, not legal advice.

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