His big mistake? Thinking a single $925 wages payment made him a Pipeview employee
A single payment labelled wages did not make a worker an employee, the Employment Relations Authority's Peter Fuiava found on 20 May 2026.
Zhengxi (Nic) Hu lodged a claim with the Authority on 10 July 2025, saying he had worked for Pipeview Limited as a labourer from December 2022 to July 2024. He said he never received an employment agreement and was paid only once. Pipeview disagreed, arguing Mr Hu had been in a joint business venture with its then director, Limei Lin, and her now former husband, Weiqiang (Brian) Feng. The company also said the Authority had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The parties agreed the preliminary question was whether Mr Hu's claim was an employment relationship problem or a civil dispute between former business partners.
Mr Hu's main evidence was an ANZ receipt showing a payment of $925.09 made by Pipeview on 26 January 2023, with the reference "wages". He said the label proved he was an employee. He told the investigation meeting his work mixed casual and regular labouring, that his days were random, and that he took instructions ninety percent of the time from Mr Feng, while Ms Lin made the company's financial decisions.
Mr Feng gave a different account. He said both he and Mr Hu received the same payment that day, and produced an Inland Revenue income summary showing gross earnings of $1,153.85 less PAYE of $228.76, a net figure of $925.09. He said neither man was an employee and that the two were in business together.
Mr Feng also produced Mr Hu's bank records, which showed three transfers from Pipeview totalling $23,000 between October 2023 and January 2024, which he described as shareholder withdrawals, alongside much larger sums moving between Mr Hu, Mr Feng and Ms Lin. In Xi v Pipeview Limited [2026] NZERA 312, Fuiava said those records were "consistent with the parties being in business together".
Fuiava found other documents pointed the same way. Mr Hu had obtained a civil judgment from a Shanghai court for RMB1,450,000 against Mr Feng and Ms Lin over a loan, and had earlier sworn an affidavit opposing a harassment order in which he described a property development joint venture between the two couples dating back to 2021. That affidavit made no mention of him being a Pipeview employee.
Applying the test under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which asks the Authority to find the real nature of a relationship rather than rely on labels, Fuiava found the common law tests of control, integration and economic reality were not met. He noted Mr Hu's records showed a $30,000 payment to Ms Lin eight days before she bought Pipeview for $120,000 in December 2022.
Fuiava concluded the evidence pointed to a civil dispute between former business partners, which the Authority had no jurisdiction to resolve, and declined the application. Inviting Mr Hu and Mr Feng to settle their differences elsewhere, he said they could "retreat from the field of conflict with their honour intact". With both parties self-represented and no actual costs shown, he ordered that costs lie where they fall.
