Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 17–23 August 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.
Mikayla Zhang v Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora — Jurisdictional dismissal over late grievance filing
Ms Zhang worked for Health NZ and raised concerns about being excluded from information during annual leave and about a hostile management response in November 2025. She later lodged a formal statement of problem with the ERA in April 2026, more than 90 days after raising these issues. Health NZ argued the claims were filed too late under the 90-day time limit in the Employment Relations Act.
The Authority found that Ms Zhang’s emails in early November 2025 did not properly raise a personal grievance. She had sought clarification on operational matters and received satisfactory answers, but never communicated to her employer that she considered their conduct unfair or wanted them to address a complaint. The Authority dismissed the claim as it was lodged outside the 90-day window and Health NZ had not consented to late filing. Regarding events over Christmas 2025/2026, the Authority found these were not raised within 90 days either.
Legal considerations for employers: Employees must communicate grievances clearly and specifically to their employer within 90 days. Vague complaints or operational queries do not constitute a formal grievance. Employers should ensure they understand what an employee is actually complaining about, since the law requires the employer to know what it is responding to. If an employee does raise a genuine concern, document your response carefully.
Yiping Yin v SERT Holdings Limited — Wage arrears and holiday pay recovery from company director
Mr Yin was employed by a small hospitality business that closed due to water damage in early February 2025. He claimed unpaid wages for two days worked after the closure, plus annual holiday pay and public holiday entitlements. The company was later liquidated. Mr Yin also sought to recover these sums personally from the company’s director, Mr Sert, under provisions allowing recovery from individuals involved in employment breaches.
The Authority found the company owed Mr Yin $2,517.50 in wage arrears, $27,647.45 in annual holiday pay, and $1,510.50 for alternative holidays. It confirmed the employment relationship was “frustrated” (became impossible to perform) when the building flooded, but Mr Sert was found to be a person involved in breaching employment standards by failing to pay wages on time and failing to comply with holiday entitlements. Since the company cannot pay, Mr Sert was personally liable for the full amounts owed.
Legal considerations for employers: Directors can be held personally liable for unpaid wages and holiday entitlements if their company breaches employment standards. The threshold for involvement is relatively low—knowing the essential facts establishing the breach is enough. Even if your business faces hardship or closure, you must prioritise paying wages and holiday entitlements on time. Keep detailed holiday and leave records as required by law.
Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited — Costs award reduced due to mixed outcome and rejected settlement offer
Mr Dos Santos was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by his employer. He succeeded on two of seven claims and was awarded compensation, lost wages, wage arrears, public holiday pay, and a penalty totalling over $30,000. However, Nresh had made a Calderbank settlement offer of $30,000 before the investigation meeting. Mr Dos Santos rejected it and proceeded to the hearing, where he failed on five of his claims.
The Authority awarded Mr Dos Santos $6,000 in costs instead of the standard daily tariff ($6,750). Although he was the substantially successful party, the rejection of a settlement offer close in value to the final outcome, combined with the mixed success on claims, justified a reduction. The Authority noted his core claims (unjustifiable dismissal and disadvantage) were vindicated, which distinguished this from a purely numerical assessment of success on all issues.
Legal considerations for employers: Settlement offers made before proceedings can significantly affect costs awards, even if the employee ultimately wins. Consider making reasonable Calderbank offers early to avoid the costs of defended hearings. An employee’s mixed success across multiple claims may reduce the costs they can recover, particularly if unsuccessful claims added complexity and cost. Document your settlement positions carefully.
Labour Inspector v NZ Dream Contracting Limited — Premium payments for employment unlawful; personal recovery from company director
Two overseas workers, Kulvinder and Jaskaran, paid substantial premiums (totalling $52,000 each) to NZ Dream and its director Gurpreet Singh in order to secure employment and work visas. The payments were made partly in India and partly in New Zealand through family members. The respondents denied seeking or receiving premiums, claiming the money was loans or unrelated payments. The Labour Inspector brought proceedings on behalf of the workers, alleging breaches of the Wages Protection Act.
The Authority found the premiums were clearly sought and received in breach of the Wages Protection Act section 12A, which prohibits employers from charging employees for employment. The evidence was compelling: bank statements, WhatsApp messages, video recordings, and consistent witness testimony showed payments were directly linked to job offers and visa processing. Gurpreet was the sole director who made employment decisions and controlled visa arrangements. The Authority held it had jurisdiction over premiums paid overseas because the employment agreements were made in New Zealand for work performed here. Gurpreet must personally repay $104,000 if the company defaults, as he was an officer of the company and “a person involved” in the breaches.
Legal considerations for employers: Charging employees (directly or indirectly) for employment or visas is illegal and exposes you and your directors to personal liability. This includes requesting payments from family members or third parties. The use of agents, family members, or overseas payments does not shield you from liability. Courts will look at the substance of transactions, not their form. Directors can be pursued personally for recovery if their company cannot pay. If you employ migrant workers, ensure all visa and recruitment costs are borne by your business, not the employee.
DLF v Ministry of Social Development — Individual Funding recipient not an employee despite control and administrative duties
DLF is a disabled person who receives Individualised Funding (IF) from the Ministry of Social Development to manage their own disability support services. Under IF, DLF recruits, employs, and pays their own caregivers and manages various administrative duties including rostering, compliance, and liaison with government agencies. DLF argued they are an employee of MSD because they perform work that would otherwise need to be done by someone else and because MSD exercises ultimate control over their arrangements through audits and monitoring.
The Authority declined to find an employment relationship. Although DLF performs real work and MSD exercises some oversight, the relationship is fundamentally one of funding and support, not employment. DLF chose IF as their preferred funding model because it gave them control over their own care arrangements. The administrative duties they perform arise as a consequence of receiving IF and managing their own support, not because MSD engaged them to work for it. The Authority also rejected DLF’s claim to be a homeworker, finding that not all their work is confined to a dwellinghouse (some administrative work occurs online and offsite), and the engagement contemplated by the homeworker definition cannot be established.
Legal considerations for employers: The substance of a relationship matters more than labels or formal documents. A person who receives government support or funding to manage their own affairs and perform necessary administrative duties is not automatically an employee. However, this decision is specific to the IF scheme and should not be read broadly. If you engage someone to perform work for your business, the label you give the arrangement (contractor, volunteer, funding recipient) will not protect you if the reality shows an employment relationship exists.
