Yusong Du v Sly House Limited [2025] NZERA 765 - Unjustified dismissal by text, remedies reduced 50 percent for contributory conduct

Quick facts

• Citation: [2025] NZERA 765
• ERA registry: Auckland
• Member: Andrew Gane
• Investigation meeting: 11 February 2025 (Auckland)
• Determination date: 26 November 2025
• Applicant: Yusong Du
• Respondents: Sly House Limited (trading as a construction company) and Shengli Yang
• Representation: May Moncur (advocate) for the applicant; Shengli Yang for the respondents

What was claimed

• Unjustified disadvantage (based on being sent to Napier to do seasonal work, delays, and issues around location and visa conditions).
• Unjustified dismissal (based on a WeChat dismissal message on 28 May 2023).
• Employment premium allegation and penalties (claim that money paid to obtain employment breached section 12A of the Wages Protection Act).
• Director liability / person involved arguments (seeking to recover from an individual if the company could not pay).

Key context (migrant recruitment narrative)

The determination sets out an extensive factual background involving third party intermediaries operating as "Sino-Cultural Exchange Center Limited" (SCEC) and other individuals. The applicant said he paid various sums in China to secure a job in New Zealand and a work visa, and that he arrived expecting to start construction work in Auckland.

A key point in the case was whether the employer had a connection to these third party arrangements. The ERA ultimately found there was not enough evidence to connect the employer (or Mr Yang) to the Napier arrangement or to the payments made in China.

Timeline (high level)

• 24 Feb 2023: Employment agreement signed.
• 29 Mar 2023: Arrived in New Zealand.
• 17 to 21 Apr 2023: Seasonal work in Napier (apple picking) arranged via third parties.
• 15 May 2023: Started work for Sly House Limited in Auckland.
• 15 to 28 May 2023: Worked about 100.5 hours on site.
• 28 May 2023: Dismissal message sent by WeChat.
• 10 Jul 2023: Personal grievance raised by representative.

Findings: unjustified disadvantage (unsuccessful)

The ERA found there was insufficient evidence that the employer (or Mr Yang) was involved in the applicant's relocation to Napier, the seasonal work, or the delay in starting the construction role. The unjustified disadvantage claim was therefore unsuccessful.

Findings: unjustified dismissal (successful)

The central dismissal evidence was a WeChat message on 28 May 2023 telling the applicant to look for other opportunities because the job was not suitable due to a lack of strength and slow work pace.

The ERA found the employer ended the employment relationship. It did not conduct a disciplinary process, and it did not follow the contractual notice provisions (four weeks notice) or any summary dismissal pathway. The applicant was therefore unjustifiably dismissed.

Remedies (and reduction for contributory conduct)

Employment premium / Wages Protection Act claim (unsuccessful)

The ERA summarised the prohibition on "employment premiums" under section 12A of the Wages Protection Act, but found there was insufficient evidence that any payments made in China to third parties were made to, or for the benefit of, the employer. The premium claim and penalty request were unsuccessful. As a result, the "person involved" claim against Mr Yang (sections 142W / 142Y) was also unsuccessful.

Costs and filing fee

• Costs contribution: $4,500 (tariff for a full day investigation meeting).
• Filing fee reimbursement: $71.55.
• Deadline: payable within 28 days of the determination date.