Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 20–26 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.
Gazi Mainul Hassan v University of Waikato – Dismissal for signing overseas employment contract
Dr Hassan, a senior lecturer, signed an employment agreement with United Arab Emirates University while still employed full-time by the University of Waikato without seeking approval or resigning. The University discovered the signed contract, investigated the matter, and dismissed Dr Hassan for serious misconduct. Dr Hassan claimed he had experienced an acute psychiatric episode at the time of signing and that the University should have paused the disciplinary process to get a psychiatric assessment.
The Authority found Dr Hassan was justifiably dismissed. The University was not aware of any acute psychiatric episode when he signed the overseas contract, and although Dr Hassan sent some erratic emails during the disciplinary process, he also provided coherent and well-reasoned responses. The University gave him a fair opportunity to respond and properly investigated the allegations. No discrimination was found. The dismissal was justified and no compensation was awarded.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers can proceed with disciplinary processes even when an employee shows some signs of confusion or distress, provided they give the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond and the employee indicates willingness to engage. A fair and reasonable employer does not need to pause proceedings to seek psychiatric assessments based solely on some unusual emails. However, employers should document their investigation carefully and ensure all relevant facts are established before making final dismissal decisions.
Labour Inspector v 7 Solutions Limited & Kamal Jeet Singh – Costs award for wage breach
This is a costs determination following an earlier decision where the Authority found 7 Solutions Limited and its director Kamal Jeet Singh had breached employment standards. The Labour Inspector sought costs contribution from both the company and the director personally.
The Authority awarded the Labour Inspector $8,000 as a contribution towards costs, with the company and director jointly liable. The decision applied the Authority’s standard notional daily tariff approach to costs, recognizing that modest costs awards support access to justice for workers and the Crown.
Legal considerations for employers: When employment standards breaches are established, costs can be awarded against both the company and responsible individuals personally. The Authority uses a notional daily tariff ($8,000) as its starting point for costs, ensuring awards remain modest and proportionate. Directors and managers should be aware they can face personal liability for costs when they are involved in breaches.
Jennifer Jacobsen v Cube Innovations Limited – Costs awarded to successful employee
Ms Jacobsen succeeded in her personal grievance claim against Cube Innovations. The company rejected settlement offers and proceeded to an investigation meeting. Ms Jacobsen applied for a contribution towards her legal costs.
The Authority awarded Ms Jacobsen $4,500 in costs. The company had rejected reasonable without-prejudice settlement offers that would have resolved the matter for less than what Ms Jacobsen ultimately won. The Authority also issued a certificate of determination, making the award enforceable in the District Court, recognizing the importance of ensuring Ms Jacobsen could recover the costs awarded.
Legal considerations for employers: When faced with settlement offers from employees, take them seriously and consider your realistic prospects of success. Rejecting reasonable offers can result in costs awards against you even if you believed you had a defensible position. The Authority will consider whether early settlement opportunities were spurned, and this can justify costs awards beyond the standard tariff.
Girishchandra Nautiyal v Maa Kalinka & Rishiram Son’s Pvt Limited – Underpayment claim in family business
Mr Nautiyal, a cook on a work visa, claimed he was consistently underpaid, required to pay back wages to the owner, did not receive statutory entitlements, and was unjustifiably dismissed. The restaurant owner denied these allegations and provided timesheets showing the hours worked and wages paid. Mr Nautiyal provided his own records and claimed he worked 10–12 hours daily.
The Authority found Mr Nautiyal had not established underpayment claims. His own records were unreliable and contradicted by timesheets he had signed, emails he sent, and evidence from other employees. However, the Authority found wage arrears of $4,662.40 for the period before Mr Nautiyal received his first bank payment (when records were informal). Mr Nautiyal’s claim that he resigned by email was accepted—he did not establish unjustified dismissal. No penalties were imposed as the breaches were minor and informal record-keeping appeared to stem from family relationships rather than intentional non-compliance.
Legal considerations for employers: Even in family businesses, maintain proper written records of hours worked and wages paid. Informal arrangements can later create disputes and put you at a disadvantage if you cannot produce clear documentation. Keep records from day one of employment, including for cash payments. Email communications about hours and pay can be important evidence, so preserve these carefully.
Richard Wood v Three Sixty Capital Partners Limited – Owner-operator cannot claim employee status
Mr Wood, who held a 25% shareholding and was a director of Three Sixty, a business advisory firm, claimed he was unjustifiably dismissed and that the company breached record-keeping obligations. The company argued Mr Wood was an owner-operator in partnership, not an employee, and therefore the Authority had no jurisdiction to hear his claims.
The Authority found Mr Wood was not an employee but an owner-operator working in partnership with the other shareholders. There were no reporting lines, no performance reviews, Mr Wood enjoyed significant autonomy, he did not receive PAYE deductions, and he could develop his own client base and business interests. Although he was integrated into the business, this did not make him an employee—he was working for his own reward as a business owner. The Authority therefore had no jurisdiction and dismissed the claim without addressing the substantive allegations.
Legal considerations for employers: The distinction between employees and owner-operators in small professional partnerships depends on the real nature of the relationship, not just labels or shareholding. If principals genuinely operate as equal partners with no reporting lines, shared decision-making, and shared economic risk, they will not be treated as employees. However, clarity in written agreements and consistent operating practices are important to support this characterization.
Labour Inspector v A Dharni Enterprises Limited & Jaswinder Singh – Premium payments for migrant worker employment
The Labour Inspector investigated A Dharni Enterprises (operating a Four Square franchise) for seeking and receiving $60,000 premiums from two migrant workers on accredited employer visas in exchange for employment. The company told the workers they would receive permanent residency and three-year visas. The workers’ employment was terminated within weeks after allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation of English ability.
The Authority found the company and director Jaswinder Singh deliberately sought and received $120,000 net in unlawful premium payments. The conduct was intentional, involved deliberate concealment through intermediaries and offshore payments, and exploited vulnerable migrant workers. Penalties of $32,000 were imposed on the company and $12,000 on Mr Singh personally. An apportionment of $1,000 from the company penalty was awarded to each affected worker. The company and director were also ordered to pay the Labour Inspector’s costs of $7,191.75.
Legal considerations for employers: Seeking or accepting premiums or recruitment fees from employees in exchange for employment is illegal and will result in substantial penalties. This applies especially to accredited employer visa workers who are vulnerable and have limited job mobility. Such breaches attract both company and personal director liability, and penalties are significant. Employers must declare honestly on visa applications that they do not seek such payments.
Nirali Bhatt v Prishal Limited – Wage arrears and failure to keep records
Ms Bhatt, employed as a supervisor at a juice bar, claimed she was underpaid for hours worked, did not receive holiday pay or public holiday entitlements, and was unjustifiably disadvantaged. She claimed she often worked 10–12 hours daily but was not paid for all hours. The company denied underpayment and said Ms Bhatt requested cash payments and flexible hours to manage childcare.
The Authority found Ms Bhatt was owed $34,702.20 gross in wage arrears (less amounts already paid), $2,776.18 in unpaid holiday pay, and $667.35 in public holiday pay. She was also awarded $10,000 compensation for unjustified disadvantage due to non-payment of full wages. The company failed to provide wage and time records upon request and was ordered to pay a penalty of $1,000. Interest accrues on all amounts owed. The Authority found the company’s failure to maintain proper records, even in a family context, breached statutory obligations and disadvantaged Ms Bhatt in calculating her entitlements after termination.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must keep accurate wage and time records regardless of whether the employment involves family relationships or informal payment arrangements. Failure to do so shifts the burden to the employer to disprove wage claims and can result in penalties. Flexibility in hours does not excuse the obligation to pay all hours worked or to maintain proper records of what those hours were.
Bobby Manase & Marley Manase v Marshall, Hale & Jacques – Costs for breach of wage obligations
This is a costs determination following an earlier decision where the Authority found that directors of Future Energy Solutions Limited had failed to pay wages and other entitlements to two employees before the company went into liquidation. The directors were personally liable for the unpaid amounts. The employees now sought costs.
The Authority awarded the employees $4,571.55 (notional daily tariff of $4,500 plus filing fee reimbursement) as a contribution to their costs. The three directors are jointly and severally liable for payment, meaning each can be pursued for the full amount. The award recognized that the employees had succeeded and the directors had been personally held liable for employment standards breaches.
Legal considerations for employers: Directors of companies that fail to pay employee entitlements can be personally liable not only for the unpaid wages but also for costs awards when the matter is pursued through the Authority. Even if a company enters liquidation, directors may face personal recovery actions. Ensure all wage and entitlements obligations are met promptly to avoid both liability and costs exposure.
XDC v Allied Investments Limited (T/A Allied Security) – Reopening application declined
XDC sought to reopen a costs determination in which the Authority had reduced a costs award from $8,000 to $6,000 based on XDC’s financial hardship. XDC argued the determination contained a material factual error because it stated no financial evidence was attached to XDC’s affidavit, when in fact screenshots of bank balances and benefit payments were attached. XDC also sought a stay of costs pending the reopening and asked the Authority to waive the filing fee.
The Authority declined to reopen. Although there was a technical distinction between “evidence” and “information,” the determination clearly showed the Authority had considered XDC’s financial circumstances. No new evidence was presented. Because XDC had already filed a challenge to the substantive determination in the Employment Court, the threshold for reopening was not met. The filing fee could not be waived as the Authority lacks statutory power to do so beyond what is provided in the Act and regulations.
Legal considerations for employers: Reopening applications require evidence of material factual error or misapprehension of law that could cause actual miscarriage of justice. If a party is already challenging a determination in court, the Authority will be reluctant to reopen. Financial hardship alone does not warrant reopening if the facts were considered. Consider the Employment Court challenge process rather than seeking reopening when dissatisfied with an Authority determination on costs grounds.
Devon Whitham v Brutalitees Limited – Costs uplift for rejection of settlement offer
Ms Whitham succeeded in her unjustified dismissal claim. She sought an uplift to the standard costs award on the basis that the company had rejected a settlement offer in February 2025 that would have resolved matters at significantly less cost and for less than the remedies ultimately awarded.
The Authority awarded $3,750 in costs (an uplift from the half-day tariff of $2,250 to $3,750) based on the public interest in encouraging early settlement. Although Ms Whitham’s offer did not comply with strict Calderbank offer formalities, it was a genuine attempt to resolve the matter early. The company’s rejection of a reasonable offer that would have left it in a better position than the final judgment warranted an uplift to encourage employers to engage seriously in settlement discussions.
Legal considerations for employers: When employees make settlement offers, consider your realistic prospects of success carefully. Even if an offer does not comply with strict Calderbank rules, rejecting a genuine early settlement opportunity can result in higher costs awards at the end. The Authority looks favorably on employers who engage in settlement discussions and may penalize those who proceed to hearing when reasonable settlement was available.
