Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 14–20 September 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.
Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited – Costs award for unlawful wage deduction and dismissal
Ms Beswick was unlawfully underpaid and then dismissed by her employer. In earlier proceedings, she was awarded $2,439.09 in reimbursement for the unlawful deduction, $12,000 in compensation for personal grievance, and lost remuneration. This costs determination deals with what she should receive towards her legal costs.
The Authority ordered Friendly Loans Limited to pay Ms Beswick $4,500 as a contribution to her legal costs, plus $71.55 for the filing fee. The costs award was based on the notional daily tariff of $4,500 and the principle that costs generally follow the event—meaning the losing party should contribute to the winner’s legal expenses.
Legal considerations for employers: The Authority uses a modest daily tariff approach to costs rather than full recovery. Losing parties should expect to contribute roughly $4,500 per day of proceedings towards the successful party’s legal fees. This cost exposure is a real incentive to settle employment disputes early and to ensure wage payments are made promptly and accurately.
Michael Ritchie v Adero Pty Limited – Jurisdiction declined for overseas employment dispute
Mr Ritchie, an Australian-based employee of an Australian law firm, brought a personal grievance claim to the New Zealand ERA. He was employed entirely in Australia, under Australian law, and all work was performed in Australia. He sought to join a co-director as a party and requested the case be heard in the Employment Court. Adero and the intended second respondent both objected to the ERA’s jurisdiction.
The Authority declined jurisdiction. Mr Ritchie’s employment agreement was made in Australia, the work was entirely performed in Australia, and Australian employment law applied. The Authority found it was more appropriate for the matter to be resolved in Australia where all parties are based, and that Mr Ritchie would have fair access to justice in Australian courts. Leave to serve the respondents overseas was refused, and the application to join the co-director was made moot.
Legal considerations for employers: If your business operates overseas or employs overseas-based workers, employment disputes will typically be heard in the jurisdiction where the employment is based. New Zealand employers with overseas operations should not expect the ERA to accept jurisdiction over disputes that are entirely foreign in nature. Consider carefully which employment law regime applies when hiring internationally.
Jinghui Peng v Portland Horticulture (2021) Ltd – Costs uplift for rejecting reasonable settlement offer
Mr Peng brought claims against Portland Horticulture and was wholly unsuccessful. Before the investigation meeting, the respondents made him a Calderbank offer to settle for $4,500 without admission of liability. Mr Peng, who had legal representation at the time, rejected the offer. The investigation meeting proceeded and he lost all his claims.
The Authority awarded Portland Horticulture $5,500 as a costs contribution (based on the daily tariff of $4,500 plus a $1,000 uplift) and $517.50 for disbursements, totalling $6,017.50. The uplift was imposed because Mr Peng rejected a reasonable settlement offer that would have saved both parties the cost and inconvenience of the investigation meeting. The fact that he had legal representation when rejecting the offer made the uplift appropriate.
Legal considerations for employers: Making a reasonable settlement offer (particularly one that would benefit the employee more than the eventual outcome) can reduce your costs exposure if the claim fails. If the other party rejects a reasonable offer and then loses, the Authority is likely to impose a costs uplift to punish the unreasonable rejection. Always make written settlement offers and keep evidence of them for costs arguments.
Deven Saini and Sanjeev Kumar v Impressions Waikato Ltd – Substantial wage arrears and penalty for underpayment and poor record-keeping
Two employees, a father and son, worked as cleaners and maintenance workers for a childcare company. They were paid 30 hours per week but claim they regularly worked 12–14 hour days. The employer failed to keep proper records of the actual hours worked. The Authority found the employees worked significantly more hours than they were paid for, and the employer failed to keep accurate time and wage records, as required by law.
The Authority ordered the employer to pay Mr Saini $54,034.58 in gross wage arrears, $480 for sick leave, $4,568.40 for additional hours and alternative holiday pay, $7,101.92 for annual leave, and $1,790.33 for holiday pay, plus interest and compensation of $5,000 for the unjustified disadvantage grievance. Mr Kumar was awarded similar amounts totalling less (approximately $33,972.60 in wage arrears). The employer was also ordered to pay an $8,000 penalty for substantial underpayment over an extended period. Leave was granted to pursue the director personally if the company cannot pay.
Legal considerations for employers: Accurate time and wage records are not optional—they are a legal requirement. If you cannot produce records of hours worked, the Authority will likely accept the employee’s evidence. Systematic underpayment, particularly of vulnerable migrant workers, attracts substantial penalties and personal liability for directors. Ensure you have systems in place to track all hours worked, including maintenance and non-standard tasks, and pay accordingly.
Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited – Unjustified dismissal and substantial unpaid holiday pay for long-serving pilot
Mr McCullum, a Chief Pilot, was employed for 15 years. In December 2024, discussions began about a new employment agreement and possible redundancy. In April 2025, after his work phone was disconnected and laptop removed without notice, he was told at a meeting the business was closing and he would receive no redundancy. He left the meeting and was later told his departure constituted voluntary severance. He claims he was dismissed without proper process and is owed unpaid wages and holiday entitlements.
The Authority found Mr McCullum was dismissed (the removal of his devices and the manner in which he was addressed amounted to a sending away). The dismissal was procedurally unjustified because there was no proper investigation, no opportunity to respond to concerns, and minimal consultation. The Authority ordered RidgeAir to pay $3,541.96 in unpaid final wages and holiday pay, $26,236.80 in unpaid annual holiday pay (8 weeks’ worth), $21,317.40 in lost wages for three months of unemployment, and $15,000 compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings. A $1,000 penalty was imposed for failure to keep holiday and leave records.
Legal considerations for employers: Removing company property without notice or explanation, and summarily ending employment without consultation or proper process, amounts to dismissal and can be unjustified. Employers must keep accurate holiday and leave records or face penalties. Long-serving employees may have significant unpaid holiday entitlements; use the Holidays Act correctly and pay these out promptly when employment ends.
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited – Unjustified dismissal by text message and wage arrears
Mr Stalker, an apprentice builder, was employed from April to October 2024. He was not paid regularly between July and October, causing him to borrow from friends and family. When he raised concerns about non-payment and suggested the business might need a loan, he received a text message dismissing him for “performance/misconduct” and was terminated by email, with no investigation, warning, or opportunity to respond. He was not paid notice or holiday pay on termination.
The Authority found Mr Stalker was unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by non-payment of wages. It ordered the employer to pay $14,820 for lost wages (13 weeks’ unemployment), $15,000 compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings, wage arrears of $9,834.21 for hours worked but not paid, notice pay of $2,280, annual holiday pay of $1,399.78, and a $2,000 penalty for wage breaches. The employer was also ordered to pay $2,000 towards the employee’s legal costs.
Legal considerations for employers: Dismissing an employee by text message without investigation, warning, or process is unjustified. Payment of wages is a fundamental entitlement—failure to pay on time exposes you to large wage arrears claims, compensation awards, and penalties. Small businesses are not exempt from employment law requirements. Always investigate concerns properly and follow fair dismissal procedures, even when you believe the matter is straightforward.
Labour Inspector v Potae & Van Der Poel Limited – Consent determination for wage arrears and holiday pay breaches on dairy farm
A Labour Inspector investigated a dairy farming operation following a complaint and found breaches of minimum wage and holiday pay obligations affecting ten employees. The parties reached a settlement in which the company admitted breaches and paid all arrears. The company failed to pay two employees the minimum wage (arrears of $10,492.06), made unlawful wage deductions from three employees without consultation ($6,982.36), and underpaid annual and public holiday entitlements to multiple employees ($24,744.50 under section 23 of the Holidays Act alone, plus additional sums under other provisions). The company also failed to provide written employment agreements to three employees and failed to keep proper time and wage records or holiday and leave records.
The company paid a total of $88,459.88 in arrears to affected employees plus interest calculated to 25 November 2025. Penalties and questions about personal liability for the directors remain to be determined in further proceedings on the papers.
Legal considerations for employers: Labour Inspectors have real investigative and enforcement power. Systemic failures in wage payment, record-keeping, and holiday pay entitlements across multiple employees invite investigation and significant financial liability. Written employment agreements are not optional. Directors can face personal liability if they are knowingly concerned in employment standard breaches. Settle early if a Labour Inspector investigation is underway, but ensure all arrears are paid in full plus interest.
Desmond Hurring v A2Z Auto Dismantlers Limited – Application to dismiss refused; matter adjourned pending resolution of criminal proceedings
Mr Hurring was dismissed in December 2023 and raised a personal grievance claim within the statutory timeframe. However, he has since been incarcerated facing unspecified criminal charges with no fixed release date. He has not meaningfully participated in Authority processes. The employer applied to have his claim dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, citing the delay in commencing proceedings and Mr Hurring’s inability to participate.
The Authority refused to dismiss the claim. It found the matter was not frivolous (it raised genuine employment law issues for determination), not vexatious (the matter was raised within statutory timeframes and Mr Hurring’s delay in commencing proceedings still fell within the three-year limit), and not an abuse of process. However, the Authority adjourned the matter indefinitely (sine die) and warned Mr Hurring that if no progress is made within three years from the date of the determination, the matter will automatically be treated as withdrawn.
Legal considerations for employers: Even if an employee’s personal circumstances become difficult (such as incarceration), an employer cannot simply apply to dismiss their personal grievance claim on the ground that it is inconvenient. However, the Authority can adjourn matters where an employee cannot realistically participate, and indefinite delay can result in automatic dismissal. If facing a claim from an employee whose circumstances are uncertain, seek early case management and ensure the matter is progressed by the applicant to avoid the claim being withdrawn by default.
