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
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

A senior journalist/editor with 18 years at Radio Waatea was made redundant after a restructure merging English and Maori newsroom functions. The ERA accepted the restructure had genuine business reasons, but held the redundancy dismissal unjustified because key proposal information was not fairly shared, the employee was not clearly told his role was at risk until the termination day, and redeployment options were not consulted on. Orders: $24,230.77 lost wages (plus interest and KiwiSaver), $19,000 compensation, and a $1,500 Wages Protection Act penalty (half to the employee).

Browse topics