ClickCease

ZHANG v PENG and ANOR [2026] NZERA 16 - Constructive dismissal upheld; $18,000 compensation; $62,831 wage arrears; $3,730 premium repaid.

Constructive dismissal upheld. Orders included $18,000 compensation, $62,831 gross wage arrears, repayment of a $3,730 unlawful premium, and $2,250 costs.


ZHANG v PENG and ANOR [2026] NZERA 16

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 16
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: ZHANG v PENG and ANOR
  • Outcome: Constructive dismissal found and the personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.

Story in plain English

Mr Zhang paid a "premium" to obtain employment, then worked at a restaurant run by the respondents. The Authority found the premium was unlawful and that Mr Zhang was owed substantial wage arrears. Mr Zhang later resigned. The Authority held the resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal and found the dismissal was unjustified. The Authority ordered repayment of the premium, wage arrears, compensation for hurt and humiliation, and costs.

Key case markers

  • Authority member: Peter van Keulen.
  • This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
  • The parties are ZHANG (employee) and PENG and ANOR (employer).
  • Personal grievance type: unjustified dismissal (constructive dismissal).
  • Hearing date noted: 25 September 2025 by AVL.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • I investigated Mr Zhang's employment relationship problem with Mr Noodles by receiving written evidence and documents from him and holding an investigation meeting on 25 September 2025.
  • On 15 August 2023 Mr Zhang was instructed to pay 15,000 RMB (NZD $3,730) to Ms Peng's sister, for his employment.
  • In this case Mr Zhang was not dismissed by Mr Noodles, rather, he resigned.
  • Mr Zhang argues that because he resigned in response to breaches of duty by Mr Noodles, his resignation should be treated as a dismissal - a constructive dismissal.
  • Mr Zhang's resignation amounts to a dismissal by Mr Noodles.
  • The current rate of the daily tariff is $4,500 for the first day of the investigation meeting and $3,500 for any subsequent days. 6 For further information about the factors considered in assessing costs, see: www.era.govt.nz/determinations/awarding-costs-remedies/#awarding-and-paying-costs-1.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • The premium payment was found to be unlawful and was ordered to be repaid.
  • Wage arrears were found and ordered to be paid.
  • Constructive dismissal was found, and the dismissal was held to be unjustified.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Repayment of unlawful premium: $3,730 (payable within 28 days).
  • Wage arrears: $62,831 gross (payable within 28 days).
  • Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $18,000 (payable within 28 days; without deductions).
  • Costs: $2,250 (payable within 28 days).
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Constructive Dismissal
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Browse topics