New Zealand unfair dismissal (unjustified dismissal) case summaries from the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), explaining key facts, outcomes, and lessons for employees and employers.
These unfair dismissal (unjustified dismissal) case summaries cover Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decisions from across New Zealand. Each case highlights the facts, the Authority's reasoning, and the outcome, so you can see what tends to help or hurt a dismissal justification.
If you are dealing with a dismissal dispute, these examples can help you understand common errors in process, the standard of reasonableness applied, and typical remedies where a dismissal is found to be unjustified.
![Yusong Du v Sly House Limited [2025] NZERA 765 - WeChat dismissal and 50% contribution reduction](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Sly House sent migrant construction worker Yusong Du a WeChat message saying he was unsuitable because he was too slow and lacked strength, then argued he had abandoned the job. The ERA also considered evidence that he had overstated his prior work experience.
Before the substantive employment dispute in GXQ v NMK was determined, NMK sought permanent name suppression and a broad non-publication order. The application required the ERA to balance claimed personal consequences against the normal principle that Authority proceedings and determinations are open to the public.
Shenwei Zhang worked for Fat Dragon Restaurant Management under an arrangement the employer described as casual. After the relationship deteriorated, his work was ended through WeChat and he pursued dismissal, wage and holiday-pay claims.
Painter Cameron Wong was told to pack his belongings and leave after a workplace confrontation, then received only part of his final entitlements. Obers Brothers Construction, already in liquidation, did not participate in the ERA investigation.
Yoga Limited ultimately admitted that Xiaomeng Feng's dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine lost wages, compensation, contribution and a claimed good-faith penalty. The employer relied on performance and communication concerns to seek a reduction.
Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.
Lautusi Isaako worked full-time for ABS Builders under day-to-day direction but the respondents disputed aspects of the employment relationship and later ended his work by text after raising performance concerns for the first time. The case also involved public-holiday, annual-leave and record-keeping failures.
Four Krazy Price Mart employees said they routinely worked about 60 hours over six days while being paid for substantially fewer hours and were later dismissed when the business was sold without adequate consultation. The case combined personal grievances with extensive minimum-entitlement claims.
