ZHENG v EASTPAC CORP LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 149

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, During the day on 23 July 2020, WeChat messages show Ms Liu also tasked Ms Zheng with taking minutes of a meeting and distributing them to everyone in a staff work group. After that, By 15 March 2021 Ms Zheng wrote to Mr Qing in frustration saying she had agreed with Ms Liu to resign from other part-time work before 1 March 2021 to start working (quoted wording omitted) for Eastpac. Later, The Authority is satisfied that Ms Zheng's WeChat communications on 15 March 2021 was sufficient to raise a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, even although the resolution she focused on was still the recovery of wage arrears she believed she was owed. The determination records that The Authority was satisfied from viewing the evidence objectively that Ms Zheng did raise a grievance of unjustified dismissal within the 90-day time limit that was sufficiently apparent to enable Eastpac to remedy it. The Authority notes that Her claim for wage arrears is $9,125 is based on her work table, and The Authority found that amount is owing.8 Holiday pay (which I take to be annual holiday pay at 8% of that gross amount) is owing, being $722. Ultimately, Unjustified dismissal established [105] The evidence shows Ms Zheng was in ongoing employment, and by the end of the day on 10 March 2021, Eastpac dismissed her.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are ZHENG (employee) and EASTPAC CORP LIMITED and Anor (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 15 August and 20 September 2024 (and by audio visual link) (2 days).
• Authority member: Sarah Blick.

Key events described

• During the day on 23 July 2020, WeChat messages show Ms Liu also tasked Ms Zheng with taking minutes of a meeting and distributing them to everyone in a staff work group.
• By 15 March 2021 Ms Zheng wrote to Mr Qing in frustration saying she had agreed with Ms Liu to resign from other part-time work before 1 March 2021 to start working (quoted wording omitted) for Eastpac.
• The Authority is satisfied that Ms Zheng's WeChat communications on 15 March 2021 was sufficient to raise a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, even although the resolution she focused on was still the recovery of wage arrears she believed she was owed.
• The Authority was satisfied from viewing the evidence objectively that Ms Zheng did raise a grievance of unjustified dismissal within the 90-day time limit that was sufficiently apparent to enable Eastpac to remedy it.
• Her claim for wage arrears is $9,125 is based on her work table, and The Authority found that amount is owing.8 Holiday pay (which I take to be annual holiday pay at 8% of that gross amount) is owing, being $722.
• Unjustified dismissal established [105] The evidence shows Ms Zheng was in ongoing employment, and by the end of the day on 10 March 2021, Eastpac dismissed her.

Decision markers

• The Authority was satisfied from viewing the evidence objectively that Ms Zheng did raise a grievance of unjustified dismissal within the 90-day time limit that was sufficiently apparent to enable Eastpac to remedy it.
• Her claim for wage arrears is $9,125 is based on her work table, and The Authority found that amount is owing.8 Holiday pay (which I take to be annual holiday pay at 8% of that gross amount) is owing, being $722.
• Remedies [106] Ms Zheng has established personal grievances for unjustified action causing disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $18,000
• Arrears of wages: $9,125
• Arrears of holiday pay: $722

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.