Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 26–1 November 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.
Matias Javier Gonzales v Brutalitees Limited — Constructive dismissal after workplace safety concerns ignored
Mr Gonzales, a tattooist working on a supported work visa, was threatened and verbally abused by a member of the public at work. When he raised safety concerns with his manager Ms Dawson and requested sick leave, she dismissed his worries and refused to engage constructively. Ms Dawson then made threats about reporting him to Immigration New Zealand and withheld his wages, stating he would not be paid if he didn’t work. The employer’s conduct was deliberate and intended to pressure him into abandoning his claims.
The Authority found Mr Gonzales was unjustifiably constructively dismissed and also suffered unjustified disadvantage. He was awarded $1,779.00 in unpaid wages plus interest, $3,376.67 in unpaid holiday pay, $40,000.00 compensation for hurt and humiliation, $2,250.00 towards legal costs, and reimbursement of his $71.55 filing fee. The total award was approximately $47,497.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers have a duty to take employee safety concerns seriously and engage constructively with workers who raise them. Using immigration status as leverage to silence employees or pressure them into withdrawing claims is unlawful and will result in significant compensation awards. Ensuring compliance with basic employment obligations like paying wages and respecting leave entitlements is essential to avoiding constructive dismissal claims.
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited — Costs award following unjustified dismissal
This was a costs determination following the Authority’s earlier finding that Mr Turner was unjustifiably dismissed by Big B Cartage Limited. The company was ordered to pay $9,750 in compensation. Mr Turner’s advocate sought an award of legal costs to contribute to his representation expenses.
The Authority awarded Mr Turner $4,500 as a contribution to his legal costs and reimbursed his filing fee of $71.55. The costs award was based on the standard daily tariff for an investigation meeting, with no factors identified that would warrant an increase or decrease to the standard rate.
Legal considerations for employers: When an employer loses a personal grievance claim at the Authority, they will typically be ordered to pay the successful employee’s costs as a contribution to their legal representation. The Authority uses a notional daily tariff as the starting point for costs awards, which gives parties a predictable sense of the financial consequences of litigation. Unsuccessful defence of a personal grievance claim can therefore result in both compensation awards and costs awards.
Chenjia Ye v B&D Pro Construction Limited — Employee status determination for carpenter on work visa
Mr Ye, a carpenter on an accredited employer work visa, worked for B&D Pro Construction for approximately six weeks at $25 per hour. The company claimed he was an independent contractor and did not need to be treated as an employee, partly because of his visa restrictions. Mr Ye argued he was an employee and should have received employment protections. The key issue was whether he was engaged as a self-employed contractor or an employee under a contract of services.
Applying the Supreme Court’s four-step test for employee status, the Authority found Mr Ye was an employee. The company paid him an hourly rate based on time worked, directed his work, provided tools and equipment, and he worked under supervision at the company’s premises. The fact that he was on a work visa did not change his employment status; the company could have lawfully employed him by addressing immigration matters. This is a preliminary determination and the substantive claim remains to be investigated.
Legal considerations for employers: An employee’s visa status does not determine whether they are an employee or contractor — the substance of the working relationship matters. Paying someone an hourly rate, directing their work, providing equipment, and requiring them to work under supervision all point to employee status, regardless of visa restrictions. Attempting to avoid employment obligations by misclassifying workers as contractors based on visa complications will not succeed and can result in significant liability for unpaid entitlements.
Tsui-Ling Fan v Klinh Limited — Costs award following personal grievance success
This was a costs determination following the Authority’s earlier substantive determination in which Klinh Limited was ordered to pay Ms Fan wage arrears, outstanding holiday pay, unpaid sick leave, public holiday entitlements, a penalty, compensation, and lost remuneration. Ms Fan’s advocate sought a contribution towards her legal costs.
The Authority awarded Ms Fan $4,500 as a contribution to her legal costs and reimbursed her filing fee of $71.55. The award was based on the standard notional daily tariff with no adjustment factors identified as warranting an increase or decrease.
Legal considerations for employers: Losing a personal grievance claim results in both substantive liability and a costs award. The Authority maintains a consistent approach to costs, using a modest daily tariff to provide predictability and access to justice. Employers who fail to comply with minimum employment standards can expect to pay not only compensation and arrears but also a contribution towards the employee’s legal representation costs.
Siosifa Finau v And Or Enterprises Limited trading as Auto Super Shoppe Mayne Automotive — Harassment, unequal deductions, and constructive dismissal
Mr Finau worked as a mechanic for Mayne Automotive for over four years. He was subjected to a pattern of harassment including being told to monitor and report on his supervisor, being isolated from colleagues, having his toolbox moved, being obstructed from using work equipment, and being yelled at by management. When he sought support from his lawyer, the employer pressured him to accept blame for various allegations without showing evidence, verbally abused him, and told him to pack his tools and leave. The employer also made unlawful deductions from his final pay and failed to pay for breaks and rest breaks over his employment.
The Authority found Mr Finau was unjustifiably disadvantaged and constructively dismissed. He was awarded $50,999.63 for six months’ lost wages, $25,000.00 compensation for personal grievances, $14,667.17 for wage arrears and unpaid breaks, $3,375.00 towards costs, $1,311.00 for accountant disbursements, $71.55 filing fee reimbursement, and a penalty of $1,800.00 (half of the $3,600.00 penalty imposed, payable to the Crown). The total remedies package exceeded $96,000.
Legal considerations for employers: Creating a toxic workplace culture, isolating employees, making unlawful deductions, and pressuring employees to accept blame without evidence will result in significant personal grievance awards. Employers who fail to maintain proper wage records, fail to pay for work undertaken, and ignore employee concerns while the employee is represented by a lawyer face substantial compensation, lost wages, penalties, and costs liability. Management must treat employees with respect and dignity even when disputes arise, particularly when employees are represented.
Simran Kaur v YK Foverage Limited — Wage arrears, cancelled shifts, and failure to provide employment records
Ms Kaur worked as a front-of-house representative at a restaurant for 15 months. She claimed the employer failed to pay her accrued annual leave upon resignation, cancelled shifts without proper notice or payment, did not pay sick leave, pressured her to work excessive hours including up to 11 days without a day off, threatened her visa status, and failed to provide wage and time records despite requests. The employer denied all claims, arguing matters were resolved at a meeting and that Ms Kaur had access to records through an online payroll portal. The employer also made an unlawful deduction of over $5,000 from her final pay.
The Authority found Ms Kaur was unjustifiably disadvantaged. She was awarded $20,000.00 compensation, $5,088.06 repayment of an unlawful wage deduction, $4,232.00 for unpaid wages for cancelled shifts, $736.00 for unpaid sick leave, plus interest on all arrears calculated from the date of this determination until payment. The employer was also ordered to pay a penalty of $3,000.00 to the Crown for failing to provide wage and time records for over three years and making unlawful deductions. Costs were reserved.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must keep and provide wage and time records immediately on request by employees or their representatives; relying on access to online payroll portals is not sufficient compliance. Employers cannot make deductions from final pay without clear written consent from the employee, and even with consent, the employee can withdraw it at any time. Making deductions to “recover overpayments” well after the fact, outside the strict two-month window in the Wages Protection Act, is unlawful. Deliberately withholding information that disadvantages an employee will result in penalties and adverse inferences about unpaid wages being drawn against the employer.
