ERA rules WeChat message amounted to 'sending away' builder
A builder in New Zealand has been awarded over $20,000 in compensation after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that his dismissal via WeChat was not justified.
Liuju Wang was employed by Y&L Building in late May 2022 and had his visa transferred to the organisation by July in the same year, a crucial requirement for the builder to remain in the country.
The dismissal unfolded a "day or so" after Wang's visa was transferred to Y&L, when director En Cun Ye advised him that he needs to find a new company because there was limited work for him at the organization.
"There may be no work starting from next week… so if you want to look for a long-term job, you may have to change to a different company," Ye told Wang in a WeChat message, as quoted by court documents.
Ye added that the company has "no income and is about to go bankrupt."
In the exchange of WeChat messages shared in court, Wang asked Ye the following day: "Are you sure we want to terminate the employment relationship?"
Ye responded with: "There is nothing to do next and I don't need anyone anymore."
Wang then raised the matter to the ERA for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
Ye, however, argued at the ERA that it was fair for letting Wang know in advance that he would not be able to offer the full-time hours they agreed on. He also claimed that it was fair to let his people know in advance that work was running out and that he expected to close the company at that time.
Ye eventually obtained new contracts and the company was able to continue, according to the ERA, but by then Wang had already found another job.
Unjustifiably dismissed
ERA member Claire English ruled in favor of Wang, recognizing that he had been unjustifiably dismissed.
"A dismissal includes a situation where the employer sends the employee away. The WeChat message amounted to a 'sending away' when Mr. Ye as the employer advised Mr. Wang that his permanent employment with fixed hours would not continue," English said in the ruling.
English also accepted that Ye was fair to warn employees in advance that there would be no more work to do following unexpected loss of work.
"However, this is still a dismissal, even if it is done for genuine reasons," the ERA member said.
English also noted that Ye might not have sufficiently investigated all circumstances before telling Wang that his job was about to end, noting how the company was able to find more work later and continue operating.
"If Mr. Ye had taken more time to investigate, he may have decided not to end Mr. Wang's employment as early as he did," English said.
Ye also did not raise his concerns with Wang before dismissing him, according to the ERA member.
"Instead, he told Mr. Wang of his concerns, that there would be no more work after the conclusion of the current job, and instead of asking Mr. Wang to respond Mr. Ye immediately moved to dismissal before discussing other possible solutions with Mr. Wang."
As a result, the ERA awarded Wang $5,120 as compensation for lost remuneration. Additionally, acknowledging the emotional impact on Wang, the authority also granted him $20,000 in compensation. However, this compensation was reduced by 10% due to Wang's refusal of work requests from Ye when he was out of work and without pay.
