Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 28–4 October 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.
Arora v PA Service 2018 Limited – Wage and holiday pay arrears of $60,656.60
Gurdev Singh Arora worked for PA Service 2018 Limited but was not fully paid for all hours worked. The company has since entered liquidation. Mr Arora’s handwritten timesheets, corroborated by other documentary evidence, showed he worked more hours than he was paid for. The Authority accepted his evidence and calculated the shortfall in wages owed to him.
The Authority ordered PA Service to pay Mr Arora $56,103.32 in wages, time and a half payments and alternative holidays, plus $4,553.28 in annual holiday pay arrears, totalling $60,656.60 within 28 days. The company’s directors Amandeep and Harpreet Singh Luthra are also liable to pay these amounts to the extent the company cannot. Costs are still to be assessed by the parties or the Authority.
Legal considerations for employers: Accurate wage and time records are critical—if a dispute arises, employers bear the burden of proving correct payment. Even when a company enters liquidation, individual directors may be held personally liable for unpaid wages. Maintaining meticulous payroll documentation and ensuring all hours worked are properly recorded and paid protects both employees and employers from costly disputes later.
Labour Inspector v Ngoc Tuyet Uyen Huynh – Minimum wage, holiday pay and unlawful deductions totalling $187,071.61
A labour inspector’s proactive check on a nail salon revealed widespread breaches of employment standards. Twelve employees were not paid the minimum wage, were illegally deducted from their wages for rent and living expenses, and were not paid correctly for annual and public holidays. Some staff had also been forced to repay portions of wages to the employer. The inspector investigated whether the salon owner and co-workers received unlawful premium payments from employees seeking employment.
The Authority found the owner, Ngoc Tuyet Uyen Huynh (Amy), was solely responsible for the unlawful deductions and wage breaches. It ordered Amy to pay back a total of $187,071.61 in wage arrears, holiday pay shortfalls, and public holiday entitlements to the affected employees. However, Amy has since been declared bankrupt, which stays proceedings against her under the Insolvency Act. The Authority found insufficient evidence that the other respondents knowingly aided or abetted any unlawful premium payments.
Legal considerations for employers: Deducting wages for accommodation, food, rent or “debts” owed is illegal under the Wages Protection Act, regardless of the reason. Employers cannot use loans or debt as justification for wage deductions without express written employee consent. Accredited employers face particular scrutiny; proactive compliance with minimum wage laws, correct holiday pay calculations, and proper wage records are non-negotiable to avoid significant financial exposure.
Gong v Chongqing Rich Overseas Health Services NZ Limited – Personal grievance raised out of time and declined
Changhui Gong was employed as a massage therapist and was dismissed. She instructed her representative, Ms Ikeda, to raise a personal grievance of unjustified dismissal on her behalf. Ms Ikeda posted a letter to the company on 16 April 2024 without tracking or registered delivery, but it was never received. The first time the company became aware of any grievance was when Ms Ikeda emailed the HR manager on 9 August 2024—well after the 90-day deadline expired on 9 May 2024. Ms Gong also claimed underpayment of $38,273.27.
The Authority found that although Ms Gong had taken reasonable steps to raise the grievance through her agent, Ms Ikeda failed to take responsible measures (such as tracking or following up) to ensure delivery. While exceptional circumstances existed because Ms Ikeda unreasonably failed to ensure the letter was raised in time, the Authority declined to grant leave to raise the grievance out of time because it would not be “just” to do so. The negligence in untracked delivery, combined with the absence of further inquiry after weeks passed unanswered, was not a burden the respondent should bear. The application was declined and the wages claim was not addressed.
Legal considerations for employers: Employees must raise personal grievances within 90 days—this deadline is strict and employers are not obliged to accept grievances raised outside it unless they consent. Even where an agent acts on an employee’s behalf, the employee bears the risk if the agent fails to deliver the grievance properly. As an employer, you may reject a grievance raised outside 90 days unless exceptional and unjust circumstances exist. Always keep clear records of when grievances are received and consider formal acknowledgment procedures.
Manning v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Costs awarded despite no remedies
William David Manning was found to have been unjustifiably dismissed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). However, the Authority found he had contributed 100 percent to the circumstances leading to his dismissal and therefore awarded him no financial remedies. The Authority then determined costs separately. Manning sought $11,500 in costs (based on three days of investigation), while MBIE argued costs should be reduced by 75% or lie where they fall because Manning was unsuccessful with most of his claims.
The Authority awarded Manning $8,000 in costs plus the $71.56 filing fee, to be paid by MBIE within 28 days. The Authority rejected the argument that contributory conduct affects the cost award—it applies only to remedies, not costs. The Authority considered that Manning’s primary claim (unjustified dismissal) succeeded and he should recover some contribution to his legal costs, though the amount was not reduced from the standard tariff despite partial success on other claims.
Legal considerations for employers: Even when an employee has contributed significantly to their own dismissal and receives no compensation or lost wages, they may still recover costs if they win their primary claim. “Costs follow the event” means the successful party recovers legal costs. Contributory conduct reduces remedies but does not automatically eliminate a costs award. Employers should budget for potential costs liabilities even in cases where substantive remedies are eliminated by the employee’s own conduct.
Kupenga v The Board of Trustees, Te Aka Ora Charitable Trust – Unjustified disadvantage grievances time-barred
Donette Kupenga was employed as a caretaker and raised multiple personal grievances following a disciplinary process that led to her dismissal in May 2025. She claimed unjustified dismissal (accepted as in time), unjustified disadvantage relating to the disciplinary process, unjustified disadvantage relating to wage arrears and availability allowance disputes, and breaches of good faith. She also raised concerns about observance of tikanga during the process.
The Authority found that Ms Kupenga raised her dismissal grievance within the statutory 90-day timeframe and the Trust accepts this. However, her unjustified disadvantage grievance relating to the disciplinary process was raised outside 90 days (the letter was dated 7 April 2025, more than 90 days after the disciplinary process commenced in February). The Trust does not consent to this being raised late. Her wage arrears claim was withdrawn. The Authority declined to grant leave to raise the disadvantage grievance out of time and also found her tikanga-related grievance was out of time as a standalone claim. The matter now proceeds to substantive hearing on the unjustified dismissal claim only.
Legal considerations for employers: Personal grievances must be raised within 90 days of the action complained of or when it comes to the employee’s notice. Different grievances may have different starting dates—a disciplinary process beginning in February means disadvantage grievances based on that process must be raised by early May, separate from dismissal which occurs later. Employers should ensure all grievance letters clearly identify which actions are being complained of and the date on which those actions occurred, to help establish whether the 90-day deadline has been met.
Kuvarji Entertainment Limited v Te Rangi – Mediated settlement breached by disparaging social media posts
Kuvarji Entertainment Limited (KEL), which operates a karaoke business called Nakioke, reached a mediated settlement with former employee Kororia Te Rangi in October 2024. The settlement included confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. In November 2024, Ms Te Rangi commented on and shared a third-party social media post that was highly disparaging of KEL and its business, stating it made the situation that had led to her dismissal worse and endorsing the allegations in the post. KEL sought compliance orders, removal of posts, penalties, and costs.
The Authority found Ms Te Rangi had breached the non-disparagement clause by making comments that endorsed the disparaging statements and by re-posting the third-party post. The Authority issued a compliance order requiring her to comply with the settlement agreement, delete the posts, and cease any further disparaging statements about KEL. A penalty of $500 was imposed ($250 to KEL, $250 to the Crown). Ms Te Rangi was also ordered to pay KEL $500 in costs and reimburse the Authority’s filing fee of $71.55 within 28 days.
Legal considerations for employers: Mediated settlement agreements with confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses are binding and enforceable. Employees who breach these clauses may face compliance orders, financial penalties, and cost awards. Social media posts and comments that endorse or re-publish disparaging statements about an employer violate non-disparagement clauses even if the original criticism came from a third party. Employers should consider these clauses when negotiating settlements and take swift action (including Authority applications) if breaches occur.
LUO v BAZ – Unjustified dismissal upheld; costs awarded at $6,000
LUO was employed by BAZ and raised a personal grievance of unjustified dismissal alongside other claims. The substantive investigation took place over two part-days (18 November 2025 and 8 May 2026) due to delays partly caused by BAZ’s representative initially failing to adhere to disclosure requirements and leaving the first hearing partway through. LUO succeeded with her unjustified dismissal claim but was unsuccessful with her other claims. A costs determination was then issued separately.
The Authority awarded LUO $6,000 in costs (plus $71.55 filing fee reimbursement) within 28 days. The Authority applied a proportional daily tariff for two part-days rather than the full $8,000 sought (which would be appropriate for two full days at $4,500 and $3,500). The reduction reflected mixed success—LUO won her main claim but lost others—however, the Authority noted that any success is sufficient for a costs award to follow. The unnecessary delay caused by BAZ’s conduct was noted but balanced against the mixed outcome.
Legal considerations for employers: Costs awards follow the event, meaning the party that succeeds on any claim may recover costs. Even partial or mixed success can trigger a costs award. Delays caused by a party’s failure to comply with disclosure or procedural requirements can lead to increased costs and reduced goodwill from the Authority when assessing cost reduction. Prompt and complete engagement with the process, including timely disclosure, helps minimize exposure to cost awards.
Shaw v Brightwater Engineering Limited – Unjustified dismissal; $39,431.36 awarded despite contributory conduct
Kerry Shaw was a blacksmith and spring maker employed since 2019. On 19 December 2024, his supervisors reported unusual behaviour and presentation. The employer decided to conduct a drug test citing health and safety grounds. The testing process was poorly explained, included concerns about sample temperatures and potential adulteration that were never put to Mr Shaw, and Mr Shaw—confused and agitated—left the workplace multiple times and refused additional testing (saliva and hair follicle tests not covered by the company’s stated policy). He was summarily dismissed on 24 December 2024 for failing to comply with testing instructions.
The Authority found the dismissal was both procedurally unfair and substantively unjustified. Key failures included: no proper investigation; failure to clearly articulate the central concerns to Mr Shaw; failure to identify the decision-maker; failure to allow Mr Shaw to respond to the decision-maker; and reliance on the tester’s suspicion of sample adulteration, which was never put to Mr Shaw. The Authority ordered Brightwater to pay $19,431.36 (lost wages and holiday pay for 13 weeks) and $20,000 in compensation for hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings. Although Mr Shaw contributed 20 percent to the situation through his confrontational behaviour and leaving the site, only the compensation award was reduced (from $25,000 to $20,000); lost wages were paid in full.
Legal considerations for employers: Procedural fairness in disciplinary meetings requires: proper investigation, clear articulation of concerns to the employee, identification of the decision-maker, and a genuine opportunity for the employee to respond to that decision-maker before dismissal. Suspicions about misconduct (such as sample tampering) must be put to the employee for response. Employers cannot rely on expert opinions (such as a drug tester’s concerns) without allowing the employee to address them. Drug testing policies must be clearly communicated and followed; directing tests outside the policy scope may render instructions unlawful. Even where employee conduct contributes to dismissal, procedural unfairness can still result in substantial compensation awards.
