Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 22–28 June 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.
Bottle Box Holdings Limited – Failure to supply wages and time records
A Labour Inspector investigated whether Bottle Box Holdings Limited (BBH) and Manpreet Singh had failed to supply wages, time records, and holiday/leave records for seven employees as required by the Employment Relations Act. The company was alleged to have breached these record-keeping obligations after receiving written notice, and Mr Singh was alleged to be involved in the breaches. The Authority found the company and Mr Singh had both committed serious breaches of record-keeping requirements under employment law.
The Authority determined that the case should be removed to the Employment Court rather than decided by the Authority itself. This is because the Court already had other proceedings underway involving the same parties and similar issues concerning minimum wage breaches, wages protection, and holiday entitlements for overlapping employees during the same period (September 2023 to April 2025). Allowing both forums to proceed separately would be inefficient and duplicative.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must maintain accurate wages and time records as a legal obligation. Failing to keep proper records—or failing to provide them when requested by labour inspectors—creates serious compliance risks and can result in enforcement action. The requirement applies regardless of company size or complexity, and directors can be held personally liable for company breaches in this area.
Oranga Tamariki – Removal of personal grievance claims to Employment Court
Dahlea Reisima raised a personal grievance against the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki involving allegations of retaliation and protected disclosure issues. The Authority had previously determined some of her claims in 2024, and the Court was already hearing a challenge to that earlier decision. She then brought a new set of grievances to the Authority relating to protected disclosure matters and return to work plans, arguing these were separate from the earlier issues.
The Authority agreed to remove the matter to the Employment Court. Although the new claims involved different specific events and different timeframes, the Authority found the underlying issues were sufficiently connected—involving the same parties, the same employment relationship, and related allegations about the same management team’s conduct spanning over a decade. Having both forums address overlapping matters would waste judicial resources and require witnesses to prepare for two hearings instead of one.
Legal considerations for employers: When an employee has already challenged an earlier employment decision in court, be aware that new grievances relating to similar underlying conduct or the same employment relationship may be consolidated by the Authority or Court. Employers should consider the broader pattern of conduct alleged by the employee, not just isolated incidents, when managing employment investigations and decisions.
Jaspreet Kaur v Patel Catering Limited – Employment premium breach and wage arrears
Jaspreet Kaur was employed as a Kitchen Hand on a work visa and claimed she was owed unpaid wages, employment premiums, sick leave, notice pay, public holiday entitlements, and holiday pay. The company had allegedly charged her NZD$25,000 as a “process fee” to obtain her work visa (contrary to employment law), paid her at a lower rate than the agreed NZD$29.70 per hour, failed to pay her the guaranteed 30 hours per week, recorded unpaid leave without her agreement, and made unauthorized deductions from her wages. The company is now in liquidation.
The Authority found that Patel Catering and its director Chaitali Patel breached the Wages Protection Act by demanding and receiving an employment premium of NZD$25,000 from Ms Kaur. The Authority awarded Ms Kaur a total of NZD$19,397.29 in unpaid wages, sick leave, notice pay, public holiday entitlements, and holiday pay, plus NZD$25,000 for the unlawful employment premium, plus interest. Because the company is in liquidation and unable to pay, Ms Patel (as sole director) is jointly and severally liable for the full amounts. The Authority also imposed a NZD$4,000 penalty on Ms Patel for breaching the Employment Agreement and minimum employment standards, payable to the Crown.
Legal considerations for employers: Charging employees—or their families—any fee to secure employment or obtain work visas is strictly prohibited under the Wages Protection Act and creates personal liability for directors. Employers must pay all hours worked at the agreed rate and cannot use informal wage reductions, unpaid leave recording, or cash deductions to circumvent minimum entitlements. When a company enters liquidation, the Authority can hold directors personally liable for unpaid employment obligations, particularly where breaches are serious or intentional.
Shelani Devi v Allied Investments Limited – Costs determination following unsuccessful dismissal claim
Shelani Devi claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed, but the Authority found in April 2026 that Allied Investments Limited (AIL) had justified its actions. Ms Devi was unsuccessful in her personal grievance claim. The parties were unable to agree on who should pay legal costs, so the Authority issued a costs determination.
The Authority awarded AIL reimbursement of NZD$810.84 for disbursements (mainly flights and travel from Hamilton to Wellington). AIL did not claim for lawyer fees because it was represented at the hearing by its own Employment Relations Manager. The Authority found the travel and accommodation costs were necessary and reasonable because they avoided the cost of engaging external counsel, and AIL had provided invoices supporting the expenses.
Legal considerations for employers: The general rule in employment disputes is that costs follow the event—the losing party pays. However, a successful employer can recover only actual, reasonable disbursements (such as travel and accommodation), not lawyer time if it was handled internally. Employers should obtain and retain receipts for any costs incurred, as these will be needed to support a costs claim if the dispute goes to the Authority or Court.
James Gates v Fulton Hogan Limited – Justified dismissal following sexual harassment findings
James Gates, a Traffic Controller for Fulton Hogan, was suspended in February 2023 following complaints of inappropriate sexual conduct from female employees. After a thorough investigation, he received a final written warning on 2 May 2023. In June 2023, he was suspended again following a complaint from another young female employee that he had made unwelcome touching and inappropriate comments towards her. After a second investigation and disciplinary process, he was summarily dismissed on 4 August 2023. Mr Gates claimed his dismissals and suspensions were unjustified.
The Authority found that Fulton Hogan acted as a fair and reasonable employer at each stage: the first suspension was justified on full pay pending investigation; the investigation into the first set of complaints was thorough and fair, and the final written warning was justified; the second suspension was justified; and the dismissal was justified. Mr Gates had used force on the prisoner and failed to report the incident, which amounted to serious misconduct. The Authority found Mr Gates’s credibility was unreliable in several key respects and rejected his claims that he had not worked for a competitor while still employed, had not been warned properly, or had misunderstood the disciplinary process.
Legal considerations for employers: When allegations of sexual harassment are raised, employers should suspend the employee on full pay pending a fair investigation, allow the employee to respond to specific allegations with legal representation available, and clearly document findings and reasoning. Separate investigation and disciplinary roles help ensure fairness. An employer can rely on witness evidence even where accounts conflict, provided it explains why it accepts some accounts over others. Multiple investigations and disciplinary warnings are permissible where fresh misconduct arises, and an employee’s lack of insight or failure to accept responsibility can justify dismissal even after a warning.
Workers First Union v IAG New Zealand Limited – Urgent referral to facilitation for collective bargaining
Workers First Union and the Public Service Association applied for urgent referral to facilitation to help resolve a deadlocked collective bargaining process with IAG New Zealand Limited. The parties’ collective agreement expired on 31 March 2025. They exchanged bargaining claims on 24 November 2025, began face-to-face bargaining on 27 November 2025, and attended mediated bargaining sessions on 2 and 30 April 2026. After 15 months of bargaining, they remained unable to conclude a new collective agreement despite extensive efforts including two mediation sessions.
The Authority accepted the application and granted urgent referral to facilitation. The Authority found that the bargaining had been unduly protracted (excessive protraction beyond what would reasonably be expected) and that extensive efforts, including mediation, had failed to resolve the difficulties preventing settlement. The statutory scheme for collective bargaining encourages the Authority to assist parties reach timely settlement where these grounds are met. The Authority directed the parties to urgently contact the Authority to arrange for facilitation with a different Member.
Legal considerations for employers: Collective bargaining can take considerable time, but if negotiations have been prolonged beyond what is reasonable and mediation has not resolved the impasse, either party may apply for facilitation through the Authority. This is a free service designed to help parties reach agreement without formal adjudication. Employers should be prepared to negotiate in good faith and consider early engagement with a facilitator if bargaining stalls for extended periods, as facilitation can be more cost-effective than protracted negotiation.
MZL v VOB – Confidential settlement reached
The parties successfully resolved their employment problem at the investigation meeting and requested the Authority make consent orders reflecting their settlement. The Authority issued a determination recording the terms of the Record of Settlement as binding orders. The parties requested that their names and the settlement terms remain confidential.
The Authority issued a non-publication order prohibiting disclosure of the parties’ names, the details of their settlement, and restricting public access to the file, except where necessary for enforcement purposes.
Legal considerations for employers: Parties to employment disputes can settle at any stage, including at the Authority hearing, and request that settlement terms remain confidential. The Authority has discretion to grant non-publication orders to protect privacy where both parties agree. This allows for private resolution without public record, which can be valuable where sensitive workplace matters are involved or where parties wish to preserve a working relationship.
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Department of Corrections – Unjustified dismissal despite self-defence finding in criminal court
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi, a Principal Corrections Officer, struck a prisoner in the throat on 28 April 2021 to prevent her from spitting at him during intake processing. He was charged with common assault and successfully defended the charge in the District Court in May 2023 on the basis of self-defence; the Judge found the force was reasonable, not disproportionate, and legally justified. However, Corrections had suspended him pending an employment investigation. After the criminal charges were dismissed, Corrections resumed its employment investigation, concluded his conduct breached prison policies and the Code of Conduct, and dismissed him on 19 July 2024—nearly three years after the incident. Mr Tawhiwhirangi claimed his dismissal was unjustified.
The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified. Although Corrections said it was conducting a materially distinct employment investigation separate from the criminal proceeding, it in fact reconsidered the same factual issues the District Court had already decided—whether the prisoner was about to spit, whether Mr Tawhiwhirangi reasonably believed force was necessary, whether the force was proportionate and lawful. Corrections reached the opposite conclusions from the District Court and stated his actions were unlawful, despite the Court finding them lawful and justified. Additionally, Corrections declined Mr Tawhiwhirangi’s request to step aside as decision-maker despite a direct conflict between her evidence and his about whether she had directed him to assist that day, raising fairness concerns. Finally, Corrections took into account conduct (showing “atawhai” or comfort to the prisoner) that was not raised as an allegation, denying him fair notice. The Authority awarded NZD$17,000 compensation for humiliation and loss of dignity, three months’ lost wages (approximately NZD$19,882), and applied a 15 percent reduction for Mr Tawhiwhirangi’s contribution (failure to report the incident and failure to consider less confrontational options). Reinstatement was not ordered because Mr Tawhiwhirangi had been out of the workforce for five years, Corrections had undergone significant policy changes requiring retraining, and his spontaneous comments during the process raised concerns about his alignment with current workplace values.
Legal considerations for employers: Large public employers facing serious misconduct allegations must conduct separate, fair employment investigations even where criminal charges are pending or concluded. If a criminal court has already decided key factual matters (such as self-defence or lawfulness), an employer should not revisit those same facts and reach opposite conclusions without careful explanation of what additional employment investigation distinguishes its conclusions. Decision-makers must be genuinely impartial and should step aside if there is a material conflict of interest or a risk of perception of bias. Allegations must be clearly notified to the employee in advance; conduct taken into account in discipline cannot be introduced belatedly as supporting reasons. Even unjustified dismissals may not result in reinstatement if significant time has passed, major workplace changes have occurred, or there are genuine concerns about the employee’s fit with current organizational values.
Nathan Crisp v Malcove Distributors Limited – Reopening application declined; costs issue identified
Nathan Crisp sought to reopen an Authority investigation and determination dated 3 April 2025 in which the Authority upheld his claim of unjustified disadvantage (awarding NZD$7,000 compensation and filing fee reimbursement) but dismissed his claim of constructive and unjustified dismissal. Mr Crisp argued there were material errors of fact and law, that the Member failed to fully consider key evidence, and that serious concerns arose about whether the matter was fairly determined. The company opposed reopening.
The Authority declined to reopen most grounds. The test for reopening requires showing an actual miscarriage of justice or a real and substantial risk of one—not mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or the possibility of error. The Member had properly engaged with the constructive dismissal claim, had correctly interpreted the employment agreement on notice pay entitlements, had sufficiently addressed the Holidays Act issues, and had made a reasonable award of compensation within the range of similar cases. Mr Crisp was seeking a “second bite” at unsuccessful arguments, which is impermissible. However, the Authority identified one ground warranting reopening: the question of costs. Mr Crisp was represented and successful in his disadvantage claim, so the normal rule that costs follow the event should have been applied. The Authority indicated it would consider any application for a costs order, and noted that the sums previously awarded to Mr Crisp remained unpaid by the company.
Legal considerations for employers: Once an Authority determination is issued, challenges based on alleged errors in fact or law must generally go to the Employment Court on challenge, not back to the Authority for reopening. Reopening is available only for special circumstances such as fresh evidence, procedural defects, or serious misconduct by the Authority itself. Mere disagreement with findings or a desire to re-argue unsuccessful claims will not succeed. Successful parties are entitled to recover costs; if costs are not addressed in the determination, a party may apply separately for a costs order based on the general rule that costs follow the event.
