Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 13–19 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 April v Coatrite Fire Limited – Unjustified dismissal, underpayment, and racial comments
Mr April, a spray painter on a work visa, was employed from January 2023 until May 2024. He raised personal grievances claiming he was underpaid $3 per hour throughout his employment, subjected to racial slurs, and unjustifiably dismissed after a disciplinary meeting. The employer acknowledged the pay error but argued it was a payroll system mistake. Mr April was dismissed after receiving a disciplinary letter about performance concerns, though he claimed he was led to believe his employment would continue based on the meeting outcome.
The Authority found Mr April was unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment, unlawful wage deductions, and racial comments from the managing director. He was also unjustifiably dismissed because the disciplinary process was flawed—he wasn’t given adequate information to respond fairly, wasn’t permitted to have his support person attend by video call, and wasn’t properly considered as a vulnerable migrant worker. The Authority awarded $28,000 compensation, $18,240 in lost wages, $7,790 in wage arrears, $623 in holiday pay, and $968 in deduction arrears, plus interest and a $4,000 penalty. Mr April was ordered to reimburse $200 for parking fines only.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must pay agreed wages without error and provide proper written notice before making deductions. Disciplinary processes must give employees fair opportunity to respond with adequate information and support. Migrant workers may be more vulnerable, and employers should ensure good faith in all dealings. Racial comments or slurs, even if not intentional, can breach employment agreements and create liability for compensation.
Dongyan Lin v Yoke Insulation Limited – Costs determination for unjustified disadvantage
Ms Lin was found in earlier determinations to be an employee of two respondent companies and had been unjustifiably disadvantaged. The respondent companies had deducted PAYE from her wages but failed to remit these amounts to Inland Revenue, leaving Ms Lin liable. The Authority previously ordered compensation and debts to be paid. This determination deals only with the issue of costs following Ms Lin’s successful claim.
The Authority awarded Ms Lin costs of $4,500 (based on a full day tariff for the investigation meeting) plus $71.55 for the application fee. The respondents were ordered to pay this amount within 14 days. The modest award reflected the successful party’s entitlement to recover costs incurred in pursuing statutory employment entitlements.
Legal considerations for employers: When employers fail to remit PAYE or make other statutory deductions, they expose employees to personal tax liability and create grounds for personal grievance claims. Successful applicants can recover modest costs based on the Authority’s daily tariff, so compliance with statutory obligations is both legally and financially important. Companies in liquidation may still face liability through director or related entity claims.
Tingka Zheng v Eastpac Corp Limited – Enforcing settlement agreements through compliance orders
Ms Zheng had reached a Record of Settlement (ROS) with Eastpac after her employment relationship problem was resolved through mediation in August 2025. The ROS required Eastpac to pay $20,000 in compensation in instalments and contribute $2,500 towards legal costs. By the time Ms Zheng sought enforcement, no payments had been made. The respondent company and its director were unresponsive and offered various excuses including being overseas on business and needing to check with accountants.
The Authority issued compliance orders requiring Eastpac to pay the full $15,000 remaining compensation within 14 days, with the director personally liable for $10,000 if the company failed to pay. Interest accrued from October 2025 onwards at the civil debt rate. The Authority imposed a $3,000 penalty ($2,000 to Ms Zheng, $1,000 to the Crown) for deliberately breaching the settlement agreement. Ms Zheng was also awarded $1,500 in costs through her community law centre representative.
Legal considerations for employers: Settlement agreements signed by mediators under section 149 of the Employment Relations Act are final, binding and enforceable. Breaching these agreements is treated very seriously and attracts penalties to protect their integrity. Directors can be held personally liable to ensure companies meet settlement obligations. Deliberate non-compliance, especially without reasonable explanation, demonstrates the conduct courts penalise most heavily.
Julie Fergusson v Haurakei Trading Company Limited – Director liability for settlement breaches
Ms Fergusson reached a settlement agreement with Haurakei Trading Company (HTC) in June 2025 requiring payment of $20,000 compensation within 20 working days. The company made no payment. When the Authority investigated, the managing director admitted HTC had never had a bank account and was being wound up. He claimed the company had no funds and requested payment by instalments. Ms Fergusson sought enforcement through a compliance order and the director was joined as a party to ensure he could be ordered to put the company in funds.
The Authority issued a compliance order requiring HTC to pay the full $20,000 within 28 days and ordered the director to take all steps necessary to ensure HTC was funded to meet this obligation. A $4,000 penalty was imposed ($2,000 to Ms Fergusson, $2,000 to the Crown). Ms Fergusson recovered $2,250 in costs plus the application fee. The Authority found the director’s conduct was serious and beneath accepted standards, given he had signed the settlement knowing the company had no bank account or apparent ability to pay.
Legal considerations for employers: Directors who enter into settlement agreements on behalf of their companies must ensure the company can meet those obligations. Signing agreements while the company has no funds to pay is likely to result in personal liability orders against the director and substantial penalties. The Authority will not allow directors to hide behind shell companies or claim lack of funds after deliberately entering binding settlement agreements. Settlement breaches are treated as serious failures to comply with the employment law system.
Ali Gencer v Turquoise DKZ Limited – Migrant chef entitled to minimum wage despite agreement
Mr Gencer, a migrant worker on an exploitation visa, agreed to work as a chef for $1,000 per week after tax working 10.5 hour shifts, six days a week. He arrived in March 2024 and spent three weeks on unpaid work fixing accommodation above the café before starting as a chef in April. When he requested a 50% pay rise in June 2024, the employer declined. Mr Gencer said he quit because his request was refused; the employer said Mr Gencer resigned after saying “if you don’t want me I won’t stay.” His final pay was paid within days, confirming employment had ended.
The Authority found Mr Gencer resigned rather than was dismissed, so his dismissal claim failed. However, the Authority found he was underpaid during his first six weeks of employment. Despite agreeing to $1,000 per week, this rate fell below the minimum wage when calculated hourly. Mr Gencer was entitled to $1,152.90 in wage arrears to bring his pay up to minimum wage. His claims for unpaid work during the accommodation setup period failed because he had agreed to do that work in exchange for free accommodation, which was provided by the employer’s relative.
Legal considerations for employers: Employment agreements must comply with the Minimum Wage Act even if the employee agrees to a lower rate. Employers cannot contract out of minimum wage protections. Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable, and employers should be especially careful to ensure all agreements comply with statutory minimums. Resignation by the employee ends the employment relationship, but only where there is clear evidence the employee genuinely resigned (not just said it in the heat of the moment) and didn’t return or pursue reinstatement.
DGZ v WXU – Application for anonymisation of published determination declined
Ms DGZ sought orders to anonymise her name and identifying details in two earlier Authority determinations about her dismissal for redundancy. She claimed that publication of her name had caused reputational damage and prevented a job offer from proceeding after a prospective employer saw the online determination. She submitted that as a refugee, she had heightened privacy needs. The respondent company opposed the application, noting Ms DGZ had secured other jobs since the determinations were published.
The Authority declined the anonymisation application. While acknowledging the general principle of open justice can depart in specific cases, the evidence fell short of the required legal threshold. Ms DGZ had provided only assumptions about why a job offer was withdrawn—not confirmation from the prospective employer. She had lived in New Zealand for over 20 years, owned property, and worked successfully in her field. The determination contained no serious misconduct findings, only redundancy, so reputational risk was limited. The Authority noted neither the Employment Relations Authority nor the Employment Court has adopted a blanket policy of anonymising employee names, preferring to assess each case individually.
Legal considerations for employers: Authority determinations are public documents and names are normally published as part of open justice principles. Parties should not assume determinations will be anonymised post-publication. The bar for anonymisation orders is high and requires specific evidence of reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences. Employers should be aware that determinations, whether favourable or not, become part of the public record and may be found by prospective employers conducting background checks.
OAS v JIK Limited – Family violence leave entitlements upheld despite attendance concerns
Mr OAS worked as a chef and took time off when his dog died, then requested a week off to address a family violence situation involving his ex-partner. He had been experiencing family violence including an assault on his partner. He informed his line manager and owner that he needed time to obtain a protection order and ensure his children’s safety. The employer became frustrated with his attendance record (he had also taken time off when his arm was burned) and in emails suggested he had “abandoned” his employment and must be deemed to have resigned. The employer then ceased rostering him for shifts.
The Authority found Mr OAS was unjustifiably dismissed. While he had attendance issues, he was entitled to family violence leave under both the employment agreement and the Holidays Act 2003. The employer failed to inquire about his situation, failed to acknowledge his family violence entitlements, and dismissed him while he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded $13,500 compensation for humiliation and loss of dignity and $7,920 in lost wages (8 weeks). However, the award was not reduced under section 124 for his blameworthy conduct (unauthorised absences the week prior) because that contribution was relatively minor compared to the employer’s failure to respect his statutory entitlements.
Legal considerations for employers: Employees are entitled to paid family violence leave under the Holidays Act 2003. Employers must ask questions and seek to understand when an employee raises family violence issues rather than assuming resignation or abandonment. Employees entitled to family violence leave cannot be penalised or dismissed for taking that leave. Good faith requires active engagement with employees facing family violence, not assumptions based on prior attendance concerns. The entitlement to family violence leave overrides standard disciplinary approaches to absenteeism.
FEC v HES – School principal constructive dismissal claim fails but disadvantage found
Ms FEC served as a beginning principal at a small rural school from March 2022 to January 2024. She claimed constructive dismissal after resigning on 15 August 2023, citing unsafe working conditions following a confrontation with an aggressive parent. She stated she had been advised by police to have the parent trespassed, but the Board refused. She claimed high stress levels, lack of Board support, and excessive workload (including performing cleaner and caretaker duties). The Board denied she had formally raised health and safety concerns and noted she had resigned citing “partner’s health.”
The Authority found Ms FEC resigned for the stated reasons in her letter (her partner’s health), not solely due to the parent incident. Although the parent confrontation was distressing and the Board’s response could have been better, it did not rise to the level of constructive dismissal. However, the Authority found the Board principal was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the Board president’s visits to her home on 12 and 14 August without consent to discuss the parent issue. These unannounced home visits while she was dealing with stress were inappropriate and made her feel unsupported. The Authority awarded $10,000 compensation but declined to impose a penalty. No finding was made that the school breached its duty to provide a safe workplace because health and safety concerns were not formally raised.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must respect employee privacy and avoid conducting work business at employees’ homes without consent, especially when the employee is stressed or vulnerable. Constructive dismissal requires a serious breach of duty that makes employment genuinely untenable—disagreement about how to handle a difficult parent situation does not reach that threshold. Employees must formally raise health and safety concerns for employers to be held accountable; informal expressions of stress may not be sufficient. School boards and public sector employers should ensure their governance structures provide proper support to principals, especially those new to the role.
Consent determination with confidential settlement – Names and details protected
The parties to an employment relationship problem reached agreement and executed a Record of Settlement on 6 July 2026. The settlement was fully confidential and resolved all issues between the parties. The Authority issued a consent determination confirming the settlement was final, binding and enforceable. A non-publication order was issued prohibiting publication of the terms of the settlement and the parties’ names, in accordance with the parties’ agreement and on the basis there was no countervailing public interest in disclosure.
The Authority confirmed that settled matters on confidential terms remain protected even after a determination is issued, and the settlement cannot be challenged. If either party breaches the settlement, the other can seek enforcement through a compliance order application in the Authority.
Legal considerations for employers: When settling employment disputes through mediation or negotiation, parties can agree to keep settlement terms confidential. The Authority will protect that confidentiality by issuing non-publication orders if both parties request it. Confidential settlements represent a final resolution and cannot be reopened or challenged. However, if one party breaches the settlement, the other can enforce it through a compliance order, so both parties must take settlement obligations seriously.
