Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 6–12 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.
Duane Farrell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections – Costs award for successful personal grievance claims
Mr Farrell and the Corrections Association of New Zealand brought a case against the Department of Corrections involving multiple personal grievances. The applicants were successful in establishing that Corrections had failed to keep Mr Farrell safe at work and had breached the collective agreement. After the substantive issues were determined, the parties could not agree on costs, so the Authority was asked to decide a fair contribution to the legal expenses incurred.
The Authority awarded $4,500 in costs to Mr Farrell and CANZ, to be paid by Corrections within 21 days. While Mr Farrell and CANZ had sought $12,000 (equivalent to three days of the standard daily tariff), the Authority determined this was too high. The Authority accepted the case involved complex factual and legal issues spanning a long period with multiple discrete failures, justifying an increase from the base tariff of $2,250 to $4,500, but did not support a further uplift.
Legal considerations for employers: When facing unsuccessful employment law claims, your costs liability will usually follow the standard daily tariff unless circumstances are genuinely exceptional. Simply preparing lengthy submissions or responding to the other party’s arguments does not justify a higher costs award. However, if a case involves substantial complexity, multiple issues, or factually intricate matters like payroll calculations and entitlements, the Authority may increase costs beyond the basic tariff.
Abhishek Shrivastava v Solar Hub NZ Limited – Enforcement of settlement agreement with personal guarantees
Mr Shrivastava and Solar Hub NZ Limited reached a settlement agreement that was signed by the company’s owners, Yogesh Chand and Sangita Chand, who also personally guaranteed the payments. The settlement required Solar Hub to pay Mr Shrivastava $14,500 and $4,500 plus GST for legal costs by specified dates. The company failed to make these payments, and Mr Shrivastava brought an application to enforce the agreement. The respondents did not attend the case conference or file any statements in response.
The Authority ordered Solar Hub and the personal guarantors to pay Mr Shrivastava the full $14,500 plus $4,500 (plus GST) for legal costs, along with interest calculated from the determination date. The Authority also imposed a penalty of $1,000 against Solar Hub under section 135(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act for breaching the settlement agreement, with $500 to go to the Crown and $500 to Mr Shrivastava. Additionally, Mr Shrivastava was awarded $750 towards his costs in pursuing the enforcement application.
Legal considerations for employers: Breaching a settlement agreement signed under section 149 of the Employment Relations Act is taken very seriously by the Authority because it undermines the settlement process and compromises made by both parties. Personal guarantees by company directors are enforceable, meaning the director can be held personally liable if the company fails to pay. Even where a company provides no explanation for non-compliance, the Authority will impose penalties to protect the integrity of settlements and deter future breaches.
Chuanqin Zhang v New Windsor 2017 Limited – Compliance order and personal liability of director for unpaid wages
Mrs Zhang had previously won an Authority case against New Windsor 2017 Limited for unjustifiable dismissal and obtained orders for compensation, lost wages, and arrears totalling over $36,000. When the company failed to pay these amounts, she brought a compliance application to enforce the orders. The company and its director, Qiang Xu, did not respond to the application despite being properly served and given a fair opportunity to participate.
The Authority issued a compliance order requiring New Windsor to pay Mrs Zhang $18,000 compensation, $10,652.04 lost wages, wage and holiday pay arrears totalling $912.03, plus interest and a $3,000 penalty within 14 days. Critically, because the company was unable to pay and had breached employment standards by failing to pay wages, the Authority granted Mrs Zhang leave to pursue Qiang Xu personally for the unpaid wage and holiday pay arrears of $912.03. The company and director were also ordered to pay Mrs Zhang’s filing fee and $4,500 toward her legal costs.
Legal considerations for employers: Company directors can be held personally liable for unpaid wages and holiday entitlements if their company defaults on an Authority order and cannot pay. Directors should ensure compliance with Authority orders are prioritised, as failure to do so can expose them to personal liability. Non-engagement with Authority proceedings and failure to explain non-compliance will not assist your case, and the Authority will proceed to make orders based on available evidence.
