ClickCease

Mr Zhang paid a $3,730 premium to obtain restaurant employment and later accumulated substantial unpaid wages. He resigned after the employment relationship deteriorated and argued the employer's breaches had forced that resignation.

The short answer

The ERA found the resignation amounted to an unjustified constructive dismissal. It ordered $18,000 compensation, $62,831 gross wage arrears, repayment of the $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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Constructive Dismissal
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.

Browse topics