Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 29–5 July 2026
Each week the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) publishes its determinations. Below is a summary of the cases determined this week, with key points for New Zealand business owners and employers.
A Labour Inspector v Dosanjh Horticulture Limited — Penalties for systematic wage and holiday pay breaches
A horticulture company operating a “banking hours” system allowed migrant workers to nominate how many hours they wanted to be paid for each week, creating systematic underpayments of minimum wage, unpaid public holidays, and incomplete wage records. Four workers—including one on a temporary work visa—were affected over extended periods. The company accepted 27 breaches across the Employment Relations Act, Minimum Wage Act, Holidays Act, and Wages Protection Act, involving underpayments totalling over $60,000 across the four employees.
The Authority imposed penalties of $90,000 on the company and $45,000 on its director (a person involved in the breaches). Additionally, $5,000 of the penalty was ordered paid directly to each of the four affected employees to recognise non-financial harms, with the remainder going to the Crown. Penalties were allowed to be paid in quarterly instalments over 12 months. The company was also required to reimburse all wage and leave arrears.
Legal considerations for employers: Operating informal or flexible payment systems—even if employees appear to agree—does not shield you from minimum employment standards obligations. Migrant workers on visa sponsorship are particularly vulnerable, and the Authority treats exploitation of that vulnerability seriously. Accurate wage and time records are not optional; failures to keep them shift the burden of proof to you to disprove employee claims. Penalties for systematic breaches across multiple employees and multiple statutes can be substantial.
Amcor Flexibles (New Zealand) Limited v [Union] — Shift allowances must be included in holiday pay calculations
A collective agreement required annual holiday pay to be calculated “in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003” and separately specified that “non-taxable allowances” be included in the gross earnings calculation. Amcor excluded shift allowances (non-taxable payments) from gross earnings when calculating annual holiday pay, arguing they were reimbursements for costs incurred by employees working outside ordinary hours. The union argued shift allowances are taxable income for pay purposes and must be included.
The Authority found that shift allowances are not payments to “reimburse” employees for actual costs under the Holidays Act definition—they are contractual allowances for working unsocial hours. The Authority rejected Amcor’s estoppel defence, finding the company had relied on its own (incorrect) interpretation of the Act, not on a belief created by the union. Amcor was ordered to include shift allowances in gross earnings calculations and to pay affected union members the shortfall in holiday pay.
Legal considerations for employers: Do not assume non-taxable payments are automatically excluded from holiday pay calculations under the Holidays Act. The statutory definition only excludes genuine reimbursements for actual costs incurred. If your collective agreement refers to the Holidays Act or specifically mentions including allowances in pay calculations, you must comply with that—your own interpretation of the law is not a defence. Consult legal advice before implementing or changing holiday pay calculation methods, especially where allowances are involved.
Jeanette Go v Point Limited — Costs award following remedial redundancy determination
This is a costs-only determination following an earlier substantive judgment in which Point Limited was found to have conducted a flawed redundancy process and was ordered to pay remedies to Ms Go. Ms Go sought costs of $6,000 (reflecting one and a half days of advocate time for preparation, the investigation meeting, and submissions). Point argued costs should be modest, noting it was the successful party in a preliminary employer-identification issue, that liability was substantially conceded early, and that the matter was not a full day investigation.
The Authority awarded $2,750 to Ms Go as a contribution to costs. While Ms Go was the successful party overall, the Authority applied a modest approach reflecting that the preliminary determination outcome and the fact that liability was largely conceded before the investigation meeting. The Authority noted its usual practice is not to award preparation time separately from the daily tariff.
Legal considerations for employers: Costs in the Authority are discretionary and modest, following the daily tariff system. Conceding liability early on some issues, even if you contest remedy, may reduce your exposure to higher costs awards. The Authority focuses on access to justice and will not reward attempts to inflate costs claims for preparation or submissions beyond the notional tariff unless circumstances are exceptional.
Luboslava Kecer v Spectrum Care Limited — Costs award where claims lacked merit and conduct unreasonably increased costs
Ms Kecer was dismissed following her refusal to be vaccinated under a COVID-19 vaccination order. She raised claims including breach of good faith, health and safety breaches, and novel arguments about the employer’s failure to apply for a ministerial exemption. The Authority found her substantive claims had no merit. Spectrum sought costs of $10,500. Ms Kecer requested a stay of the costs application and argued she should not be “further financially penalised for exercising her right to seek justice.”
The Authority awarded $5,500 to Spectrum as a costs contribution. The starting notional tariff of $4,500 (one day investigation) was increased because Ms Kecer’s claims were unclear from the outset (requiring significant Authority time to clarify), she changed her position on what grievance was raised across different documents, she raised new claims and reactivated withdrawn claims in post-hearing submissions, and she pursued novel claims with no prospect of success. The Authority rejected the stay application, finding no good reason to depart from the principle that “costs follow the event.”
Legal considerations for employers: Where an employee pursues unclear or shifting claims, raises new issues late in proceedings, or pursues arguments with no reasonable prospects of success, the Authority may increase costs awards to recognise the additional work imposed. A request to “stay” a costs award pending appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Authority takes a firm approach: unsuccessful parties generally pay costs, and the discretion to adjust the tariff will be used if your conduct (or the employee’s conduct) unreasonably increased legal costs.
Gurdev Singh Arora v PA Service 2018 Limited — Migrant worker exploitation: limited relief due to unclear claims and business closure
Mr Arora, a migrant worker on a temporary work visa, alleged he paid substantial sums (initially $23,650, later $21,200) as unlawful “premiums” to secure his employment, worked 60+ hours per week for below-minimum wages, was underpaid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, received no payslips or reliable wage records, and was threatened with visa withdrawal. He was dismissed (or constructively dismissed) via a group email about restructuring, then denied payment of accrued entitlements. PA Service is now in liquidation.
The Authority found Mr Arora did not establish he was dismissed—the email was a proposal only, not a termination notice, and the company continued attempting to roster him for work after he stopped attending. On premium payments, the Authority found insufficient clarity on which amounts were genuinely employment-related versus personal loans or settlement costs, so made no orders. On wage and leave arrears, the Authority accepted Mr Arora’s handwritten time records (corroborated by WhatsApp messages) and found he was owed unpaid wages and leave. However, it declined to impose penalties (citing lack of jurisdiction for non-Labour Inspectors) and required Mr Arora to provide clear calculations before any enforcement. A $3,000 compensation award was made for stress caused by failure to provide pay information. Leave was granted to recover arrears from the company’s directors as “persons involved” if the company cannot pay.
Legal considerations for employers: Migrant workers are a particularly vulnerable group; courts and the Authority treat mistreatment seriously. Demanding payments linked to employment (visa support, visa applications, settlement) are unlawful premiums regardless of whether they are phrased as loans. Failure to provide payslips and wage records creates a burden on you to disprove employee claims about hours and pay. While this case shows some limitations in employee-initiated claims (only Labour Inspectors can seek personal penalties), directors can still be pursued for wage arrears if the company cannot pay. Clear, contemporaneous wage and time records are essential protection.
Pranpriya Chaisri v Anon Limited — Systemic non-compliance: $43,299 in arrears and $10,000 penalty
Ms Chaisri worked for a beauty and massage clinic as a manager and masseuse for five years (March 2018 to March 2023) on a permanent part-time basis at $25.50/hour. She claimed she worked 60 hours per week (10–12 hours daily, six days per week) but was paid for only 40 hours weekly by bank transfer plus approximately 20 hours in cash, with little or no paid annual or sick leave taken. When she requested wage and time records and holiday/leave records, the company provided them only after significant delay and with significant gaps and inconsistencies. The company later claimed she had taken 5–10 paid leave days annually.
The Authority found the company had breached its statutory duty to maintain accurate wage and time records and holiday/leave records, and to provide them immediately on request. In the absence of reliable employer records, the Authority accepted Ms Chaisri’s evidence (supported by text messages and dates corroborated by witness evidence) that she worked 10–12 hours daily. Over five years, this meant she was owed $34,217.82 in annual holiday arrears (24 weeks of holiday at $1,530/week ordinary pay) plus $1,081.50 in sick leave arrears. Interest was awarded from the date she lodged her statement of problem. A penalty of $10,000 was imposed on the company (reduced from a starting point reflecting multiple breaches across the Employment Relations and Holidays Acts). The company’s director, Jenjira Klaynakorn, was declared a “person involved” in the breaches, making her personally liable to the extent the company cannot pay. Costs were reserved.
Legal considerations for employers: Accurate wage and time records are not optional—they are a cornerstone of minimum standards compliance. Delay in providing records when requested, or provision of unreliable records, shifts the burden to you to disprove employee claims. The Authority will accept well-corroborated employee evidence (including contemporary messages, photographs, or witness accounts) if you cannot produce clear company records. A director’s personal liability for unpaid wages is automatic if the company cannot meet its obligations. Penalties for systemic failures affecting one employee over years can be substantial, even if the total arrears are not as large as in multi-employee breaches.
Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited — Costs award following successful unjustified dismissal claim
This is a costs-only determination following an earlier substantive judgment in which Mr Kawhaaru was found to have been unjustifiably dismissed. The investigation meeting took a full day in Nelson. Mr Kawhaaru sought the full daily tariff of $4,500 plus a $71.55 Authority filing fee. The respondent opposed any costs award.
The Authority awarded $4,500 to Mr Kawhaaru as a contribution to costs, applying the standard daily tariff with no adjustment. The Authority found no reason to increase or decrease the tariff based on the particular circumstances of the case.
Legal considerations for employers: The Authority applies a fixed daily tariff for costs ($4,500 for the first day of an investigation meeting). Where you lose a full-day investigation, expect to pay costs at or near that figure unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g., early concession of liability, unreasonable conduct by the employee, or unusual complexity). The tariff is designed to give parties certainty and promote access to justice through modest, predictable costs.
Alan Hung Lun Au v Tranzit Coachlines (Central) Limited — Personal grievances validly raised despite informal language
This is a preliminary determination on whether Mr Au raised personal grievances within the required 90-day timeframe. Mr Au, a bus driver, was suspended following a passenger complaint, then informed he would not return to his usual Te Awamutu service. He was later issued a warning and offered alternative work arrangements (move to Cambridge, 60-hour fortnight). Tranzit argued that no personal grievance had been formally raised within 90 days, only complaints framed as “employment relationship problems” and requests for mediation. Mr Au relied on informal communications at meetings on 4 July and 6 August 2025, and in an email dated 15 August 2025 from his then-lawyer.
The Authority held that a personal grievance is raised when an employee makes or takes reasonable steps to make the employer aware that the employee “alleges a personal grievance” and wants the employer to address it—no particular formula of words is required. The focus is on substance, not form. The Authority found that at the 4 July meeting, Mr Au’s support person challenged the fairness of the investigative process and Mr Au’s removal from work; this was sufficient to alert Tranzit to an allegation of unjustified disadvantage. The 15 August email from his lawyer, stating Mr Au had concerns about the warning and considered it unjustified, and that he considered an “employment relationship problem” existed and sought mediation, also constituted raising a personal grievance. Similarly, communications in August about the proposed transfer to Cambridge (objecting to the disadvantage, seeking reimbursement, and requesting the matter be addressed) raised a grievance about changes to terms and conditions. All grievances were raised within 90 days. The substantive claims will now proceed.
Legal considerations for employers: Do not assume that informal language, requests for mediation, or use of the phrase “employment relationship problem” means no personal grievance has been raised. If an employee communicates (orally or in writing) that they object to your action, consider it unjustified or disadvantageous, and want you to do something about it, a grievance is likely raised. The test is objective and substance-focused. If you are unsure whether a grievance has been raised, seek clarification immediately and in writing. Grievances not raised within 90 days are barred, so prompt documentation of what was communicated, when, and to whom is essential.
MGJ v Denture Care Services Limited — No constructive dismissal or unjustified disadvantage in restructure process
MGJ, a dental technician employed part-time for 24 hours per week, received notice in November 2024 that DCSL was proposing a restructure due to unsustainable business conditions. MGJ’s role was listed as proposed for disestablishment. At a group meeting on 26 November 2024, MGJ learned of the proposal and became distressed. After a private follow-up meeting with management on the same day (in which alternative options were discussed but not appealing to MGJ), MGJ resigned effective 31 January 2025, citing distress and anxiety, and went on sick leave for the notice period. MGJ later claimed the restructure process was poorly handled, lacked meaningful consultation, and that a promised pay increase from March 2024 had not been implemented. MGJ also claimed sick leave and annual holiday entitlements had been miscalculated.
The Authority found no constructive dismissal. Although the restructure process could have included more detail or individual consultation before the group meeting, management did offer follow-up individual meetings and explicitly invited MGJ to submit feedback and alternative proposals. DCSL had not made a final decision to disestablish MGJ’s role; the process was genuinely ongoing when MGJ resigned. The Authority rejected the claim that DCSL breached good faith—sufficient avenues for consultation and input were available. On unjustified disadvantage: the pay rise claim failed (MGJ took no formal action at the time and the company applied the same freeze to all staff); the sick leave claim failed (DCSL was entitled to limit MGJ to the statutory maximum of 20 days after resignation, even if discretionary accrual had been allowed during employment); and the annual holiday claim failed (holiday and leave records showed correct accrual and payment). No compensation or arrears were awarded. Because neither party was legally represented, no costs were awarded.
Legal considerations for employers: Restructuring processes do not breach good faith simply because an employee is unhappy or stressed. You must consult meaningfully, provide opportunity for input, and explain the rationale, but you need not follow a specific point-by-point formula. Offering follow-up individual meetings and inviting feedback satisfies good faith obligations. An employee’s decision to resign before a restructure process concludes, even if the proposal would affect them, is not a constructive dismissal if reasonable avenues for consultation and input remain open. Do not voluntarily extend sick leave or other entitlements beyond statutory minimums during employment if you intend to limit them upon resignation—be explicit in your policies. Ensure holiday and leave records are accurate and reconcile them with employees before employment ends to avoid disputes.
