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.

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.

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.