Stay informed about NZ Employment law

KRL, a Fijian national working as a Corrections Officer at Mt Eden Corrections Facility, was arrested in May 2026 on serious corruption and drug trafficking charges arising from Operation Jasper. Following his arrest, his employer (the Department of Corrections) placed him on leave without pay due to bail conditions preventing him from attending his workplace. KRL applied for an interim injunction and compliance order to require Corrections to continue paying him; both applications were declined, with the Authority finding that the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured Corrections, and that alternative immigration pathways should be explored first.

Applicant: KRL (employee, Corrections Officer — name suppressed)
Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (employer)

Applicant: Simon Mitchell KC and Angus Drumm, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Michael Kilkelly and Sean Kinsler, counsel for the Respondent

KRL, a work visa holder from Fiji, commenced employment as a Corrections Officer at Mt Eden Corrections Facility (MECF) on approximately 22 April 2024. On 20 May 2026, he was arrested as part of Operation Jasper — a major Police corruption investigation — and charged with 10 (later 16) counts broadly relating to bribery, corruption, and drug trafficking allegedly committed during his employment. His court-imposed bail conditions included a prohibition on going within 100 metres of MECF and restrictions on contacting numerous co-defendants, effectively preventing him from attending his workplace. Corrections wrote to KRL on 26 May 2026 advising that, because his bail conditions prevented him from working, he would not be paid unless he used annual leave; KRL did not respond and was placed on leave without pay from 28 May 2026. KRL raised a personal grievance on 3 June 2026 alleging unjustified disadvantage, which Corrections denied, and Corrections also raised the possibility that the employment contract may have been frustrated. KRL commenced proceedings in the Authority on 24 June 2026 seeking an interim injunction (to require continued payment) and a compliance order; a direction to mediation did not resolve matters, and oral submissions were heard on 20 August 2026.

1. Whether KRL's name should be suppressed (non-publication order) — Status: Established (para [3]).

The Authority granted a non-publication order under Schedule 2, clause 10 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) by directions dated 26 June 2026. The order was confirmed to continue until further order of the Authority. The determination confirms this order remains in force.

2. Whether a serious question to be tried exists in relation to KRL being effectively suspended without pay — Status: Established, but assessed as weakly arguable (paras [21]-[28]).

The threshold for a serious question to be tried is low — the applicant need only show the claim is not vexatious or frivolous and has some arguable prospect of success (X v Y Ltd v NZ Stock Exchange [1992] 1 ERNZ 863). The collective agreement (cl 11.1.8) permitted suspension for serious offences but was silent on pay during suspension; it is generally accepted that suspension without pay is not justifiable absent express agreement except in truly exceptional circumstances (Singh v Sherildee Holdings Ltd). KRL argued that Corrections had, in substance, suspended him without pay regardless of the label used. The Authority accepted this raised a serious question to be tried but characterised the argument as not particularly strong.

3. Whether a serious question to be tried exists in relation to frustration of KRL's employment contract — Status: Established (paras [29]-[32]).

Frustration applies to employment relationships (Karelrybflot v Udovenko [2000] 2 NZLR 24 (CA)) but requires a high threshold of "impossibility of performance or radically different performance" and must be kept within "very narrow" limits (DQJ v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2025] NZEmpC 10). KRL argued that bail conditions are temporary and variable and do not render performance permanently impossible. Corrections argued that the bail conditions had fundamentally altered the employment relationship. The Authority found a serious question existed specifically as to whether KRL's employment at some other Corrections facility had ended due to frustration, noting that Corrections is a large employer and KRL's work visa did not preclude working at other Auckland prisons. The Authority adopted a cautious approach given that a finding of frustration would extinguish KRL's unjustified dismissal rights.

4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim injunction — Status: Dismissed (i.

e. balance found to favour Corrections) (paras [33]-[39]).
The balance of convenience requires assessing the impact on each party if relief is granted or not, with the merits being relevant (Brooks Homes Ltd v NZ Tax Refunds Ltd [2013] NZSC 60). KRL argued severe financial hardship as the sole income earner for his wife and three children, none of whom are eligible for welfare benefits due to their temporary visa status. Corrections argued that continuing to pay KRL from public funds for up to two years while he awaits trial for serious offending would be prejudicial and create an unacceptable precedent. The Authority accepted damages would not be an adequate remedy given the passage of time until the 2028 trial, but found that the appropriate remedy lay in KRL seeking a section 61 Immigration Act 2009 visa variation to enable him to pursue alternative employment, rather than remaining on Corrections' payroll.

5. Whether the overall justice of the case favoured granting the interim injunction — Status: Dismissed (paras [40]-[45]).

The overall justice assessment is a final check on the earlier analyses (NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd). The Authority noted KRL had a weakly arguable suspension case and a relatively stronger (but still narrow) frustration case. The Authority also considered the best interests of KRL's three children as required by Article 3(1) of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, treating this as a primary but not paramount consideration; it found the children's interests could be served by remaining with their mother either in New Zealand or Fiji. The overall justice favoured declining both the interim injunction and the compliance order, particularly given the availability of an alternative immigration pathway.

6. Whether a compliance order should be granted — Status: Dismissed (paras [4], [45]).

The application for a compliance order was considered alongside the interim injunction application. For the same reasons that the interim injunction was declined — primarily the balance of convenience and overall justice favouring Corrections, and the existence of an alternative remedy via immigration — the compliance order application was also declined.

7. Costs — Status: Reserved (para [46]).

Costs were reserved. The Authority noted that if KRL is legally aided, costs may lie where they fall pursuant to section 45 of the Legal Services Act 2011.

Both applications (interim injunction and compliance order) were dismissed; the overall result favoured the Respondent at this preliminary stage.

None ordered at this stage. Costs reserved (may lie where they fall if KRL is legally aided). This is a preliminary determination only; the substantive investigation meeting into KRL's personal grievance claims has not yet been heard.

[CONSENT]

A Labour Inspector brought proceedings against Goldriver Mining Limited (GML), a West Coast gold mining operation, its sole director Yang Wang, and shareholder Wensui Wang, for breaches of minimum employment standards affecting three employees. The parties reached a consent determination establishing multiple statutory breaches relating to minimum wages, holiday pay, record-keeping, and unlawful wage deductions. Arrears totalling $39,835.61 were ordered to be paid to the three employees, with penalties and costs reserved for a further hearing.

Applicant: Labour Inspector (Jonty Challies-Gibb, designated Labour Inspector)
Respondents: Goldriver Mining Limited (First Respondent/employer); Yang Wang (Second Respondent, sole director and shareholder); Wensui Wang (Third Respondent, shareholder and HR/admin)

Applicant: Melinda Geary, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Charlotte Parkhill and Dan Smith, counsel for the Respondents

GML is a gold mining company incorporated in 2013, operating near Hokitika on the South Island's West Coast, and has been operating in New Zealand since 2012. The three affected employees — Zhaofa Lin, Huaijian Liu, and Zhendong Qu — were Mandarin-speaking workers employed by GML on accredited employer work visas, paid at a contractual rate of $29.66 per hour. GML paid employees a fixed monthly amount regardless of hours actually worked, with purported top-up payments made approximately every six to twelve months; wages were paid offshore in Chinese RMB into Chinese bank accounts. A complaint was received from New Zealand Police on 17 September 2024, triggering a Labour Inspector investigation commencing 7 October 2024, during which GML cooperated and subsequently entered into an Enforceable Undertaking. The Labour Inspector found arrears totalling $59,592.54, later revised to $39,835.61 after accounting for additional payments, arising from failures to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, unlawful wage deductions for accommodation, food, and other costs made without proper written consent, and deficient holiday and leave entitlements. The parties agreed on a statement of facts and consented to orders recording the breaches and directing payment of arrears; the Labour Inspector's claims against Wensui Wang were withdrawn, and penalties and costs were reserved for a further hearing.

1. Whether GML breached s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by failing to keep a compliant wages and time record — Status: Established (para [4](a)).

GML failed to keep a record of the method of calculation used when determining wages paid to the employees. The parties agreed by consent that this breach was established, and the Authority recorded it accordingly.

2. Whether GML breached s 81 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to keep a compliant holiday and leave record — Status: Established (para [4](b)).

GML did not maintain records of payments for public holidays on which employees worked, or of payments for unworked public holidays where entitlements existed. The breach was established by consent.

3. Whether GML breached s 6 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 by failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked — Status: Established (para [4](c)).

Because GML paid a fixed monthly amount regardless of actual hours worked rather than calculating wages based on hours actually performed, employees were underpaid in breach of the minimum wage obligation. Established by consent, with minimum wage arrears quantified as: $120.53 (Qu), $284.74 (Liu), and $5,403.70 (Lin).

4. Whether GML breached s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 (WPA) by failing to pay the entire amount of wages payable without deduction — Status: Established (para [4](d)).

GML made deductions from wages for accommodation, food, power/gas, laundry, phone, and internet without proper authority, resulting in employees not receiving their full wage entitlements. Established by consent, with s 4 WPA deduction arrears quantified for Mr Lin at $1,522.57.

5. Whether GML breached s 5 of the WPA by making deductions without written consent from employees — Status: Established (para [4](e)).

Monthly deductions ranging from $280 to $1,640 were made from employees' wages without written consent. The initial employment agreements contained no deductions clause. Established by consent, with arrears of: $13,640.00 (Qu), $6,410.00 (Liu), and $1,240.00 (Lin).

6. Whether GML breached s 5(1A) of the WPA by failing to consult Mr Lin and Mr Liu before making specific deductions under a general deductions clause — Status: Established (para [4](f)).

While Mr Lin's and Mr Liu's second employment agreements contained a general deductions clause, GML relied on this clause without first consulting the employees, in breach of the consultation requirement under s 5(1A). Established by consent.

7. Whether GML breached s 5A of the WPA by making unreasonable deductions from wages — Status: Established (para [4](g)).

The deductions made for accommodation and related expenses were considered unreasonable by the Labour Inspector and accepted as such by GML. Established by consent.

8. Whether GML breached s 23 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to correctly pay annual holiday pay on termination of Mr Qu's employment — Status: Established (para [4](h)).

GML incorrectly purported to deduct amounts owed by Mr Qu for flights, accommodation, meals, and overpaid wages, resulting in failure to pay holiday pay upon termination within 12 months of commencement. Established by consent, with holiday pay arrears forming part of Qu's total of $22,405.46.

9. Whether GML breached s 49 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to provide the correct entitlement for an unworked public holiday relating to Mr Lin and Mr Qu — Status: Established (para [4](i)).

GML failed to pay the correct entitlement for unworked public holidays in respect of both Mr Lin and Mr Qu. Established by consent.

10. Whether GML breached s 50 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to provide the correct entitlement for a worked public holiday relating to Mr Liu and Mr Qu — Status: Established (para [4](j)).

GML failed to pay the correct entitlement for worked public holidays in respect of Mr Liu and Mr Qu. Established by consent.

11. Whether GML breached s 60 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to provide the correct alternative holiday entitlement for Mr Qu — Status: Established (para [4](k)).

Mr Qu did not take any alternative holidays throughout his employment, and GML failed to provide the correct alternative holiday entitlement. Established by consent.

12. Whether Yang Wang was personally involved in the above breaches and should be made personally liable for arrears in the event of GML's non-payment — Status: Established (para [4](m)).

Mr Wang was agreed by consent to be a person involved in all of the statutory breaches found against GML, and he will become personally liable for the arrears if GML fails to pay by the specified deadline. No specific test analysis was articulated beyond the parties' consent.

13. Whether Wensui Wang should be held liable for the breaches — Status: Dismissed (para [4](n)).

The Labour Inspector's claims against Ms Wang were withdrawn by consent, with no issue as to costs.

14. The quantum of penalties to be imposed on GML — Status: Not reached (para [5](a)).

This issue was expressly reserved and not resolved in this determination; it will be the subject of a further investigation and subsequent determination to be conducted on the papers.

15. Whether penalties should be imposed on Yang Wang, and if so the quantum — Status: Not reached (para [5](b)).

This issue was also expressly reserved for a further investigation and subsequent determination.

16. Costs — Status: Not reached (para [5](c), [7]).

Costs are reserved pending disposal of the entire matter, including the penalty proceedings.

The claim was partially resolved by consent: all statutory breaches were established against GML, arrears were ordered to be paid, and the claim against Wensui Wang was withdrawn; penalties and costs remain for a further hearing.

Arrears ordered to be paid by GML:
- $9,477.99 to Zhaofa Lin
- $7,952.16 to Huaijian Liu
- $22,405.46 to the Labour Inspector (for distribution to Zhendong Qu)
- Total arrears: $39,835.61

Interest: Waived unless GML defaults, in which case interest becomes payable on arrears (calculated using the Ministry of Justice Civil Debt Interest Calculator) backdated to 30 May 2025 (the date of the draft Investigation Report).

Penalties: Not ordered in this determination — reserved for further hearing.

Personal liability: Yang Wang will become personally liable for the arrears if GML fails to pay by the deadline.

Reinstatement: Not applicable / not sought.

Costs: Reserved pending disposal of the entire matter.

Note: This is a consent determination; further determinations will follow regarding penalties (against GML and potentially Mr Wang) and costs.

Moheeni Raj, a Slicing Operator employed by George Weston Foods (NZ) Limited, was dismissed for medical incapacity following a shoulder injury sustained in September 2024. The key legal question was whether her dismissal was unjustified under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, applying the medical incapacity framework from Lal v The Warehouse Group Ltd. The Authority found the dismissal was justified and dismissed all of Ms Raj's claims, leaving her without any remedy.

Applicant: Moheeni Raj (employee, former Slicing Operator)
Respondent: George Weston Foods (NZ) Limited (employer)

Applicant: Applicant in person (self-represented)
Respondent: Charlotte Evans and Emilie Aitken, counsel for the Respondent

Ms Raj was employed by George Weston Foods as a Slicing Operator. On or about 28 September 2024 she sustained a shoulder injury. George Weston (which is ACC-accredited to manage its own workplace injuries) investigated and determined the injury was not a workplace injury, and Ms Raj's ACC claim was declined; she did not challenge this finding within the statutory three-month period. From 8 October 2024 until her dismissal she was on light duties or off work entirely. George Weston arranged physiotherapy support, offered a specialist occupational therapist assessment at its cost, and sought return-to-work planning, but Ms Raj declined the occupational therapy assessment, ceased physiotherapy before completing the programme, and failed to attend or explain her absence from scheduled meetings. After 26 weeks on restricted duties, with no medical evidence of any likely return to full duties, George Weston wrote proposing dismissal for medical incapacity, gave Ms Raj multiple opportunities to respond (including accepting written feedback when she could not attend meetings), and on 15 April 2025 confirmed her dismissal. In earlier proceedings (October 2025) the Authority had declined Ms Raj's application for interim reinstatement. At the substantive investigation, Ms Raj sought to raise numerous additional issues including bullying, ACC Act breaches, Privacy Act, Human Rights Act, and Health and Safety at Work Act claims, but confirmed at the investigation meeting that she wished only her unjustified dismissal claim to be investigated, and those additional issues were set aside with her agreement.

1. Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to investigate the cause of Ms Raj's injury or disturb the ACC finding that it was not a workplace injury — Status: Dismissed (paras [28]-[38]).

Section 133(5) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 expressly prohibits the Authority from considering or granting remedies in relation to any matter covered by the ACC Act if the person has a right of review or appeal under that Act. Ms Raj had three months under s 135(2)(f) to challenge the finding that her injury was not a workplace injury but did not do so. The Authority accepted that it had no jurisdiction to disturb that finding, and accordingly could not accept Ms Raj's submissions that she had suffered a workplace injury. No authorities beyond the statutory provisions were cited on this point.

2. Whether Ms Raj's additional claims (bullying/harassment, ACC Act breaches, good faith under s 4, s 32 of the Act, further s 103A claims, Privacy Act 2020, Human Rights Act 1993, and Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) should be investigated — Status: Not reached (paras [9]-[14]).

These matters were not included in Ms Raj's statement of problem and were raised for the first time in her reply witness statement after George Weston's evidence had been filed, preventing any response. Ms Raj also confirmed at the investigation meeting that she only wished the Authority to investigate her unjustified dismissal claim, and with her agreement the additional issues were not considered. Ms Raj separately confirmed she had not raised a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage, so the bullying disadvantage claim could not proceed in any event.

3. Whether Ms Raj was unjustifiably dismissed for medical incapacity — Status: Dismissed (paras [39]-[95]).

The applicable test is s 103A(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether the employer's actions and conduct were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time. In a medical incapacity context, the Authority applied the four-part framework from Lal v The Warehouse Group Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 66 (reasonable opportunity to recover; fair and reasonable inquiry into prognosis; fair consideration of employee's responses; and recognition that fairness cuts both ways, with employees obliged to be responsive and communicative). The Authority found all four elements satisfied: George Weston gave Ms Raj 26 weeks on light duties, arranged physiotherapy, offered a specialist occupational therapist assessment, repeatedly raised concerns, consulted her about possible dismissal, and accommodated her unavailability for meetings by accepting written submissions. Ms Raj, by contrast, declined the occupational therapist assessment, stopped physiotherapy, failed to attend or explain absences from meetings, and never provided any medical evidence of a likely return to full duties. The Authority concluded that a fair and reasonable employer could have dismissed Ms Raj in these circumstances and that the dismissal was justified.

4. Whether Ms Raj was entitled to remedies (lost wages, compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i), and reinstatement under s 123(1)(a)) — Status: Dismissed (para [96]).

Because the personal grievance of unjustified dismissal was not established, no remedies arose for consideration. The Authority noted that in any event, by the time of closing submissions Ms Raj appeared no longer to be seeking reinstatement.

5. Whether any remedy should be reduced for Ms Raj's contributory conduct under s 124 of the Act — Status: Not reached (para [15](c)).

This issue was identified for investigation but, as no grievance was established and no remedy was ordered, the question of reduction under s 124 did not arise.

6. Costs — Status: Reserved (paras [97]-[99]).

Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If unable to do so, George Weston may file a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the determination, with Ms Raj having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would apply the standard daily tariff unless adjustment is warranted.

The claim was dismissed in its entirety; the dismissal was found to be justified and Ms Raj is not entitled to any remedy.

None ordered. Costs reserved, with a timetable set for the parties to file memoranda if costs cannot be agreed.

Robert Paul Dignum, a Systems Engineer employed by Veolia Water Services (ANZ) Pty Ltd, succeeded in a first determination (June 2026) establishing that Veolia had unjustifiably disadvantaged him by failing to allocate a higher-specification company vehicle consistent with a separate agreement under which he had foregone other employment benefits. This second determination resolves the outstanding issues of remedy quantum and costs, with the Authority ordering Veolia to offer Mr Dignum a choice between two remedial options rather than fixing a single monetary amount, and awarding $3,000 in costs.

Applicant: Robert Paul Dignum (employee, Systems Engineer)
Respondent: Veolia Water Services (ANZ) Pty Ltd (employer)

Applicant: Mary Jane Thomas, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Sarah Ongley, counsel for the Respondent

Robert Paul Dignum has worked as a Systems Engineer for Veolia Water Services (ANZ) Pty Ltd. In 2007, Mr Dignum opted to forego a salary package of $80,000 per annum plus on-call and callout allowances in favour of a lower salary of $73,500 per annum with the provision of a company vehicle for private use. From that time he also foregone superannuation, health and life cover, overtime, and on-call payments. A dispute arose in or around September 2024 when Veolia allocated Mr Dignum a vehicle categorised as a "Tool of Trade," which the first determination (12 June 2026, [2026] NZERA 375) found constituted an unjustifiable disadvantage because Veolia failed to exercise its discretion to allocate a higher-specification vehicle consistent with past practice and the "bargain" struck in 2007. The first determination directed the parties to agree on quantum of lost remuneration under s 123(1)(c)(ii) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), reserving leave to the Authority if they could not agree. The parties were unable to agree on either compensation quantum or costs, and both matters were referred back to the Authority for determination on the papers.

1. Whether the parties could agree on the quantum of lost remuneration pursuant to the first determination's order — Status: Not reached by agreement; resolved by Authority order (paras [2]–[9]).

The first determination had directed the parties to agree on compensation representing Mr Dignum's lost remuneration (claimed at $35,300.16 gross for the period since September 2024, being 16% of salary equivalent to foregone benefits). Veolia countered that the loss was only the difference in vehicle specification value, quantified at $459 per annum exclusive of GST. The Authority declined to fix a single monetary sum, instead applying s 160(2) and (3) of the Act (the equity and good conscience jurisdiction) to craft a solution suited to the ongoing employment relationship. The Authority found that Mr Dignum could not both receive full compensation and also be allocated a higher-specification vehicle, and resolved the impasse by ordering Veolia to offer Mr Dignum a choice between two structured options.

2. Whether Mr Dignum should be awarded a higher-specification vehicle going forward — Status: Partially established (paras [7]–[9]).

Mr Dignum sought allocation of a vehicle without company signage, GPS, and with a tow bar and roof racks. Veolia argued specific performance was not practicable as the model was no longer available in its fleet, and that monetary compensation for the specification difference was the only appropriate remedy. The Authority accepted that Mr Dignum could not "have his cake and eat it" by receiving full compensation and also a higher-specification vehicle. Under Option ii of the order, Veolia must allocate a new vehicle on the basis that Mr Dignum occupies a Leadership/Management role (a higher specification than a Tool of Trade allocation), with ongoing personal use on a status quo basis, while his salary package remains unchanged.

3. Whether Veolia must offer Mr Dignum a restructured remuneration package equivalent to the $80,000 option — Status: Established as an available remedy option (paras [7]–[9]).

The Authority found the compensable wrong was that Mr Dignum's overall remuneration package had been wrongly reduced by treating the vehicle as a Tool of Trade and deducting its value from his total remuneration. Under Option i of the order, from 12 June 2026 Veolia must place Mr Dignum on an increased base salary and benefits package equivalent to the current value of the $80,000 option (with associated benefits) as if he had made that election in 2007, while the vehicle continues to be allocated on a Tool of Trade basis subject to Veolia's reasonable conditions (including GPS monitoring for health and safety purposes and signage requirements), but with retention of personal use on existing terms.

4. Whether costs should be awarded, and if so at what level — Status: Established (paras [10]–[15]).

The Authority applied the well-established discretion under s 15 of Schedule 2 of the Act and the principles from PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808, including that costs follow the event and are not a punishment. Mr Dignum had made an open settlement offer on 4 February 2025 (vehicle replacement plus $10,000 compensation and costs), on the basis of which his counsel sought an uplift to $13,363.48 plus GST. Veolia submitted the offer was not made on a Calderbank basis, was unworkable, and costs should lie where they fell. The Authority agreed there was no basis for an uplift but found that Mr Dignum's level of success warranted a costs award, fixing $3,000 as a contribution to legal costs plus the $71.55 filing fee.

5. Whether compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)(i) was appropriate — Status: Dismissed (confirmed from first determination, referred to at para [1]).

The first determination had declined to award compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) because Mr Dignum had continued to be allocated a vehicle for private use throughout. This finding was not revisited in the second determination, forming part of the backdrop to the remedy assessment.

6. Whether a penalty for breach of Mr Dignum's employment agreement was appropriate — Status: Dismissed (confirmed from first determination, referred to at para [1]).

The first determination had found no explicit breach of the employment agreement because Veolia had legitimately applied its own vehicle selection policy. No penalty was ordered. This finding was not revisited in the second determination.

The claim was partially upheld: the Authority resolved the quantum impasse by ordering Veolia to provide Mr Dignum a choice between two structured remedial options (restructured remuneration package or higher-specification vehicle allocation), and awarded $3,000 costs plus the filing fee.

Remedy options (Mr Dignum's choice between two alternatives ordered from 12 June 2026):
- Option i: Veolia to place Mr Dignum on an increased base salary and benefits package reflecting the current value of the $80,000 per annum option (with associated benefits) as if elected in 2007; vehicle remains allocated on a Tool of Trade basis with ongoing personal use on existing terms but subject to reasonable Veolia conditions (including GPS monitoring and signage); effective from 12 June 2026.
- Option ii: Salary package and vehicle allocation remain as status quo (no monetary adjustment); Veolia to allocate a new company vehicle as soon as practicable, selected on the basis that Mr Dignum occupies a Leadership/Management role (higher specification), with ongoing personal use on a status quo basis.
- Costs: $3,000 (contribution to legal costs) plus $71.55 (Authority filing fee), payable by Veolia to Mr Dignum.
- No compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) (humiliation/distress): None ordered.
- No penalty for employment agreement breach: None ordered.
- Specific monetary quantum of lost remuneration under s 123(1)(c)(ii): Not fixed; subsumed into the two-option order.

[COSTS ONLY]

This is a costs-only determination following an earlier substantive decision ([2026] NZERA 475) in which the applicant FEC succeeded on an unjustified disadvantage claim against respondent HES and was awarded $10,000, but failed on her constructive dismissal claim. The key legal questions were whether mixed success should reduce the applicant's costs entitlement and whether the respondent's two Calderbank settlement offers (both significantly exceeding the award) should reverse the costs position. The Authority found that the Calderbank offers were reasonable and their rejection unjustified, reversing the costs position and ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $2,500.

Applicant: FEC (employee)
Respondent: HES (employer)

Applicant: Fiona McMillan, counsel
Respondent: John Unsworth, counsel

In a prior determination dated 16 July 2026 ([2026] NZERA 475), FEC was found to have been unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment by HES and was awarded $10,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. Her constructive dismissal claim was unsuccessful. The investigation meeting ran for two days (5 and 6 August 2026). The parties were unable to agree on costs, and each lodged submissions. The respondent had made two Calderbank settlement offers: $20,000 plus $5,000 costs on 10 September 2024, and $32,500 on 26 June 2025 — both substantially exceeding the $10,000 ultimately awarded. The applicant argued her claims arose from the same factual matrix and that rejection of the offers was reasonable given her pursuit of vindication; the respondent argued that rejection was unreasonable and sought a 50% costs uplift payable by the applicant.

1. Whether costs should follow the event in favour of the applicant as the successful party — Status: Established in principle, then reversed by Calderbank analysis (paras [13]–[15], [23]).

The Authority confirmed the general principle that costs follow the event and applied the daily tariff approach (currently $4,500 for day one and $3,500 for subsequent days), citing PBO Limited v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 and Faggotti v Acme & Co Limited [2015] NZEmpC 135. As the applicant succeeded on her unjustified disadvantage claim, the prima facie starting point was costs in her favour of $8,000 for a two-day hearing. However, this starting position was ultimately displaced by the Calderbank offers.

2. Whether mixed success (failure on the constructive dismissal claim) justified a reduction in the applicant's costs — Status: Established (paras [24]–[27]).

The Authority noted that mixed success is still success for costs purposes, citing Coomer v J A MacCallum and Son Limited [2017] NZEmpC 156 at [43], but acknowledged that unsuccessful claims can justify moderation. The Authority found that the failed constructive dismissal claim expanded the scope and duration of proceedings, and that the hearing would likely have occupied only one day had only the successful claim been pursued. A reduction of $3,500 (equivalent to the second-day tariff) was applied, leaving a notional costs award of $4,500 in the applicant's favour before considering the Calderbank offers.

3. Whether the respondent's Calderbank settlement offers were reasonable and, if so, whether rejection of those offers was unreasonable so as to reverse the costs position — Status: Established (paras [17]–[21], [28]–[38]).

The Authority set out the applicable principles, citing Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell [2010] NZCA 385 and Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 137, confirming that an effective Calderbank offer normally reverses the costs position. Both offers were found to be clear, unambiguous, made at appropriate times, and 2.5 to 3.25 times the amount ultimately awarded. The applicant had sufficient information and legal advice to assess them fairly. The Authority rejected the applicant's arguments based on vindication and the respondent's conduct, finding the vindication achieved was limited and could have been obtained by accepting the offers. Accordingly, the costs position was reversed in the respondent's favour.

4. What quantum of costs should be awarded to the respondent — Status: Established (paras [39]–[45]).

Applying the general principles — including that costs are not punitive, awards should be modest, and the applicant did have limited success — the Authority weighed all relevant considerations in equity and good conscience. It also noted that the statement of problem was prepared and lodged before the Calderbank offers, and that the applicant's limited success (a $4,500 notional entitlement absent the Calderbank issue) moderated the respondent's award. Costs of $2,500 in favour of the respondent were ordered.

The claim for costs was resolved in favour of the respondent: the applicant is ordered to pay the respondent $2,500 as a contribution to costs.

Costs: $2,500 payable by the applicant (FEC) to the respondent (HES) within 28 days of the date of this determination. No other remedy ordered (this is a costs-only determination).

Rachel Shaw, an employee of OJI Fibre Solutions (NZ) Limited, disputed whether she was entitled to a 7.5% pay increase under the parties' collective employment agreement (CEA) that took effect from the pay week commencing 5 June 2023, when she had started work on 6 June 2023 — the day after a public holiday. The key legal question was whether the CEA required an employee to be employed on 5 June 2023 specifically, or merely during the pay week commencing on or after that date. The Authority found in Ms Shaw's favour, holding that she was entitled to the 7.5% increase and that OJI had breached the CEA by not paying it, directing the parties to calculate the arrears owed.

Applicant: Rachel Shaw (employee)
Respondent: OJI Fibre Solutions (NZ) Limited (employer)

Applicant: Emily Griffen, counsel
Respondent: David France, counsel

Ms Shaw commenced employment with OJI on 6 June 2023, operating specialised manufacturing machinery in OJI's packaging plant. She was offered a pay rate of $26.50 gross per hour, which was above the then-minimum rate under the previous collective employment agreement (CEA 2020–2023) in place at the time of her offer. During the period of Ms Shaw's recruitment, OJI and the union (E Tū Incorporated) were in bargaining, and Terms of Settlement were signed in late May 2023 providing for a 7.5% pay increase from the pay week commencing 5 June 2023; the new CEA 2023–2026 was ratified by union members on 8 June 2023 and backdated to commence 5 June 2023. OJI did not pay Ms Shaw the 7.5% increase, contending she had to be employed on 5 June 2023 itself to qualify, whereas Ms Shaw argued she was employed during the relevant pay week and was covered by the CEA from commencement by virtue of the statutory 30-day coverage provision and the CEA's retrospective operation. Ms Shaw joined the union on 8 June 2023 and authorised union fee deductions on 9 June 2023; OJI did pay her the subsequent 5% increases in 2024 and 2025. The parties disputed the matter from mid-2023, with Ms Shaw lodging her claim with the Authority on 22 August 2025; mediation in October 2025 was unsuccessful, and the matter was ultimately determined on the papers.

1. Whether Ms Shaw was covered by the CEA 2023–2026 from the commencement of her employment on 6 June 2023 — Status: Established (paras [23]-[36]).

Section 62(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 provided that for the first 30 days of employment, a new employee's terms and conditions comprise those of the applicable collective agreement as if they were a union member. The Authority found that Ms Shaw commenced employment on 6 June 2023 covered by the previous CEA 2020–2023 under this provision, and that the subsequent ratification and backdating of the new CEA to 5 June 2023 (under clause 3.2) meant she remained continuously covered by the collective in place in the workplace. Section 53 of the Act, permitting continuation of a collective for up to 12 months after expiry where replacement bargaining had commenced, was also noted as relevant context. The Authority rejected OJI's argument that the coverage clause's reference to employees who "elect" to be members altered this position.

2. Whether the CEA, properly interpreted, required Ms Shaw to be employed on 5 June 2023 specifically to qualify for the 7.5% pay increase — Status: Dismissed (paras [37]-[41]).

The Authority applied contractual interpretation principles, starting with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in clause 3.3 of the CEA, which stated the increase applied "on the first day of the pay week commencing on or after 5 June 2023" (citing Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy and KiwiRail Limited v Mobbs [2020] NZEmpC 139). The Authority found no words in the CEA limiting the increase to employees employed on 5 June 2023 specifically, and that implying such a restriction would be to add words rather than recognise an obvious implication. Ms Shaw started on 6 June 2023, which fell within the pay week commencing 5 June 2023, and the plain reading of the clause therefore entitled her to the increase. The Authority also rejected OJI's submission that the $26.50 rate offered to Ms Shaw was agreed to include the 7.5% increase, finding that this position could only be characterised as subjective intention not reflected in the written agreement.

3. Whether OJI's argument that finding entitlement for Ms Shaw would produce a nonsensical outcome by extending the increase to other employees who commenced after 5 June 2023 — Status: Dismissed (paras [41]).

The Authority accepted Ms Shaw's submission that her situation was apparently singular: she was the only known employee who commenced employment during the specific pay week in which the 7.5% increase took effect. Employees commencing after that pay week would either be paid at minimum rates with the 7.5% already built in, or at individually negotiated rates incorporating the increase. The Authority found no other claims from employees in the same position and was not persuaded that the outcome would expand improperly.

4. Whether OJI breached clause 3.3 of the CEA by not paying Ms Shaw the 7.5% pay increase — Status: Established (para [42], [44]).

Having found that Ms Shaw was entitled to the 7.5% increase, the Authority determined that OJI's failure to pay it constituted a breach of clause 3.3 of the CEA. OJI was ordered to pay Ms Shaw the accumulated shortfall (wage arrears) resulting from the breach.

5. Calculation of wage arrears — Status: Conditional/deferred (paras [43]-[45]).

Ms Shaw's own calculation of arrears was $10,412.31, based on time, wage, and leave records provided by OJI. OJI submitted, in the alternative, that if entitlement were established the parties should be directed to resolve the calculation. The Authority agreed with this approach, noting uncertainty as to the accuracy of the calculation but finding the exercise should be manageable. The parties were directed to use best efforts to agree on the arrears calculation, with leave to return to the Authority if a specific dispute about the calculations could not be resolved.

6. Costs — Status: Not reached/deferred (para [46]).

The Authority noted the applicable Practice Direction and the presumption that parties bear their own costs in disputes about the interpretation of a collective agreement. The determination set out a timetable for costs memoranda if the parties could not resolve costs between themselves, reserving the question for determination if necessary.

The claim was upheld: the Authority found Ms Shaw was entitled to the 7.5% pay increase under the CEA and that OJI breached clause 3.3 by not paying it, with the quantum of arrears directed to be resolved by the parties (subject to a right to return to the Authority).

Wage arrears: OJI Fibre Solutions (NZ) Limited is to pay Rachel Shaw the accumulated shortfall caused by the non-payment of the 7.5% pay increase from June 2023. The quantum is to be agreed by the parties (Ms Shaw's calculation is $10,412.31); if agreement cannot be reached, the parties have leave to return to the Authority to resolve any specific calculation dispute. No fixed dollar amount ordered at this stage — remedy is conditional on the parties' calculation exercise.
Reinstatement: No.
Costs: Reserved/deferred — parties to attempt resolution; if not resolved, Ms Shaw to file a memorandum within 28 days of the determination date; OJI has 14 days thereafter to respond. Presumption of own costs in CEA interpretation disputes noted.

Giorgia Beillard, a recruitment consultant, brought claims of unjustified constructive dismissal and unjustified disadvantage against her employer, Coverstaff Recruitment Limited, following her resignation on 2 May 2025 after a series of performance-related meetings and a proposed performance improvement plan. The key legal questions were whether Coverstaff's conduct amounted to constructive dismissal and whether the manner in which performance concerns were raised unjustifiably disadvantaged Ms Beillard. Both claims were dismissed.

Applicant: Giorgia Beillard (employee, recruitment consultant)
Respondent: Coverstaff Recruitment Limited (employer)

Applicant: Aynaz Nowparvar, advocate
Respondent: Sarah McFetridge, counsel

Ms Beillard was employed by Coverstaff as a recruitment consultant in its South Auckland branch from 17 June 2024 until she resigned on 2 May 2025. From early 2025, Coverstaff developed performance concerns about Ms Beillard, which were initially addressed through informal ad-hoc conversations by her branch manager, Mr Ngapaku, and then through more structured meetings from 3 March 2025. At a meeting on 7 April 2025, Ms Beillard was told that improvement had been insufficient and a performance improvement plan (PIP) was proposed, with termination identified as a possible outcome. Ms Beillard resigned on 1 May 2025 upon returning from annual leave, before any formal disciplinary process commenced. Ms Beillard claimed she was subjected to sudden unannounced meetings, threats of disciplinary action, an onerous work-reporting tool, belittling salary comments, and that Coverstaff failed to address risks to her health and safety; Coverstaff maintained that its actions were a genuine, fair, and reasonable response to legitimate performance concerns.

1. Whether Ms Beillard was unjustifiably constructively dismissed — Status: Dismissed (paras [8]-[29]).

The Authority applied the established test from Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372, requiring the employee to show that the employer gave an ultimatum to resign or be dismissed, followed a course of conduct deliberately aimed at coercing resignation, or breached a duty that led to the resignation. Ms Beillard relied on the second and third limbs. The Authority found no evidence that Coverstaff's conduct was motivated by anything other than genuine performance concerns, and citing Greetham v Lawter (NZ) Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 174 at [66], confirmed that a frank and robust performance appraisal does not amount to constructive dismissal. On the breach-of-duty limb, applying Weston v Advkit Para Legal Services Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 140 and NZ Woollen Workers IUOW v Distinctive Knitwear NZ Ltd (1990), the Authority found that while the meetings were not framed as Ms Beillard expected and lacked written follow-up, this inconsiderate conduct did not rise to repudiatory conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to make resignation reasonably foreseeable; Ms Beillard had also never raised concerns about her manager or working environment prior to her resignation letter.

2. Whether Coverstaff followed a course of conduct with a deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing Ms Beillard to resign — Status: Dismissed (paras [11]-[22]).

The Authority considered the management style and context of the meetings, accepting Mr Ngapaku's evidence (corroborated by Mr Jayappa) that his conduct was open, honest, and supportive. The performance data presented by Coverstaff (client hours information) was found to be less reliable than first thought, but the Authority nonetheless accepted that Coverstaff had genuine concerns about Ms Beillard's performance in key areas. There was no indication of a deliberate intent to manufacture disharmony or manipulate a resignation.

3. Whether Coverstaff breached a duty that led to Ms Beillard's resignation — Status: Dismissed (paras [23]-[29]).

The Authority applied the test requiring the breach to be of a sufficiently serious nature to make resignation reasonably foreseeable and to indicate an employer's intention not to be bound by the contract. The mismatch between Mr Ngapaku's informal management style and Ms Beillard's expectations of structured, documented meetings did not constitute a breach of duty. Ms Beillard had not raised any concerns before resigning, and Coverstaff had no reason to foresee her resignation. The threshold for constructive dismissal was held to be high, and Ms Beillard resigned before any formal process commenced.

4. Whether Ms Beillard was unjustifiably disadvantaged by sudden and unannounced meetings — Status: Dismissed (paras [33]).

The Authority applied the s 103A test of justification from the Employment Relations Act 2000, asking whether a fair and reasonable employer could have acted in the same way. The Authority found that informal, unannounced desk-side and car check-in meetings were consistent with how Mr Ngapaku managed all consultants and with the fast-paced nature of the branch environment, and Ms Beillard had not previously objected to this style.

5. Whether Ms Beillard was unjustifiably disadvantaged by threats of disciplinary action — Status: Dismissed (paras [34]-[36]).

The Authority found that the proposed PIP was a logical next step in an escalating and proportionate process, that delaying its implementation until after Ms Beillard's annual leave was fair, and that no formal warnings or disciplinary steps were ever taken before her resignation. The timeframes involved did not indicate any unjustified or extended period of threats.

6. Whether the work-reporting tool imposed on Ms Beillard constituted an unjustified disadvantage — Status: Dismissed (paras [37]-[39]).

The Authority acknowledged the tool was onerous and that no specific feedback was given on its outputs, attributing this to Mr Ngapaku's inexperience rather than bad faith. However, the tool was found to be a reasonable attempt to understand workflow issues, and because Coverstaff paid fixed salaries (not commission), the tool created no financial disadvantage. On balance, it did not constitute an unjustified disadvantage.

7. Whether belittling salary comments by Mr Ngapaku constituted an unjustified disadvantage — Status: Dismissed (paras [40]-[42]).

Mr Ngapaku acknowledged commenting that Ms Beillard was not performing at a level commensurate with her salary. The Authority found this was an unnecessarily blunt remark but one that reflected the genuine performance context. Applying s 103A(5) of the Act (minor defects in process that do not result in unfair treatment), the Authority held that the single comment did not amount to an unjustified disadvantage.

8. Whether Coverstaff failed to address risks to Ms Beillard's health and safety — Status: Dismissed (paras [43]-[44]).

The Authority found that Ms Beillard had not raised any health and safety concerns prior to her resignation, and Coverstaff was unaware of any significant impact on her mental health or that she was considering resigning due to the working environment. Without such knowledge, Coverstaff could not be held to have failed to address health and safety risks.

9. Remedies under s 123 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and reduction under s 124 — Status: Not reached (para [45]).

Because both grievance claims were unsuccessful, the Authority did not need to consider any remedies or whether any reduction for blameworthy contributory conduct was warranted.

10. Costs — Status: Reserved (paras [46]-[48]).

The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve this between themselves. Either party may file a costs memorandum within 28 days if agreement cannot be reached, with the other party having 14 days to respond. The Authority indicated it would apply its usual daily tariff basis if required to determine costs.

Both the unjustified constructive dismissal claim and the unjustified disadvantage claim were dismissed in their entirety.

None ordered. Costs reserved — parties encouraged to resolve costs between themselves; if not resolved, either party may file a memorandum within 28 days of the determination.

Daniel Doland, a former employee and minority shareholder of Aztec Packaging Group Limited (Aztec), brought a personal grievance claim against James Clark — Aztec's sole director — alleging Clark was his true employer and was personally liable for unjustified disadvantage, unjustified dismissal, and arrears of wages and holiday pay. The central legal question was whether Clark personally, rather than Aztec, was Doland's employer. The Authority found that Aztec was Doland's employer throughout the relationship, and accordingly dismissed all claims against Clark.

Applicant: Daniel James Doland (employee/minority shareholder)
Respondent: James Clark (director and majority shareholder of Aztec Packaging Group Limited)

Applicant: Daniel Doland, self-represented
Respondent: No appearance

Doland first met Clark in 2012 and invested in Aztec Packaging Group Limited in mid-2016, acquiring 24.5% of its shares. He was employed by Aztec in a series of senior roles — Sales Manager, Operations Manager, and Business Unit Manager — receiving weekly wages paid from Aztec's accounts and payslips issued in Aztec's name. From late 2024, Aztec's financial position deteriorated severely, losing customers and accounts worth millions of dollars, and Aztec was placed into liquidation on 21 February 2025 with receivers appointed on 7 March 2025. Doland's employment ended as a consequence of the liquidation, and he was identified by the liquidator as one of nine employees whose employment was terminated. Doland claimed Clark was personally his employer — on the basis that Clark exercised near-complete control over Aztec and was the sole signatory on its bank accounts — and sought $450,000 in remedies including unpaid wages, holiday pay, a two-year salary payment, and compensation. Clark did not engage with the Authority's proceedings at any stage, failing to attend two case management conferences and the investigation meeting and lodging no evidence or submissions.

1. Was James Clark personally the employer of Daniel Doland? — Status: Dismissed (paras [32]–[52]).

The Authority applied the intensely factual employer identity test from Pilgrim v Attorney-General (No. 2) [2023] NZEmpC 227, read alongside s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which requires determination of the "real nature of the relationship." The Authority also drew on Youtap Ltd v Johnson [2025] NZEmpC 90 (noting that where employer identity rather than employee status is in question, the parties' intentions become a "key factor"), Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34, Velazquez v Martin [2021] NZERA 416, Temple v Pilgrim [2023] NZCA 631, Rasier Operations BV v E Inc [2025] NZSC 162, and Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] NZLR 325. The Authority found that at the outset, and throughout, the parties' intentions were that Aztec — not Clark personally — would be the employer; Doland's remuneration was paid from Aztec's funds (not Clark's personal funds), payslips were issued in Aztec's name, and Doland's roles were all directed at advancing Aztec's corporate interests. Clark's control and instruction-giving were consistent with his role as Aztec's sole director, not with a personal employment relationship. The Authority also noted that Doland had himself made employment-related claims against Aztec during its liquidation (including for some of the same money claimed here), which was consistent with an acceptance that Aztec was his employer. The Authority concluded that Aztec was, and remained, Doland's employer until the liquidation, and that Clark's influence was exercised in a governance capacity only.

2. Did Clark unjustifiably disadvantage Doland (by providing false/misleading information, leaving him without resources to manage irate customers, failing to pay wages on time, and failing to provide an individual employment agreement)? — Status: Not reached (para [54]).

Because the Authority found that Clark was not Doland's employer, it did not proceed to consider whether Clark's conduct constituted unjustified disadvantage. These issues were identified as agreed issues for investigation but were rendered moot by the threshold finding.

3. Was Doland unjustifiably dismissed by Clark? — Status: Not reached (para [54]).

For the same reason as issue 2, the unjustified dismissal claim was not considered on its merits.

4. Is Doland owed wage arrears and/or arrears of minimum entitlements by Clark? — Status: Dismissed (para [54]).

The Authority's finding that Clark was not the employer meant Clark bore no personal liability for any unpaid wages or minimum entitlements. The Authority noted it did not address whether Aztec or Clark might have separate liability for employment standards breaches (e.g. potential personal liability of a director), as that was beyond the scope of this determination.

5. Is Doland owed other money related to the employment relationship by Clark (including a two-year salary payment for efforts to save the company)? — Status: Dismissed (para [54]).

This claim also fell away entirely upon the finding that Clark was not Doland's employer.

6. What remedies should be awarded, and should any be reduced for Doland's contributory conduct under s 124 of the Act? — Status: Not reached (para [54]).

Given the dismissal of all substantive claims, no remedies were considered and the s 124 contributory conduct reduction question was not reached.

7. Costs — Status: Dismissed (para [55]).

The Authority declined to make any costs award. Doland was self-represented and unsuccessful; Clark did not participate. The Authority ordered costs to lie where they fall.

The application was dismissed in full on the basis that James Clark was not Daniel Doland's employer and therefore bore no personal liability for any of the claimed grievances or monetary entitlements.

None ordered. Costs were ordered to lie where they fall (para [55]). The Authority noted (para [53]) that the determination did not address potential breaches of employment standards by Aztec or Clark's possible personal director liability for such breaches, leaving those matters open for separate proceedings if applicable.

Shaun Graves, a machine operator, claimed he was unjustifiably dismissed by NZSL Employment Limited, a logging company. The central legal question was whether Mr Graves was an employee or an independent contractor at the time the relationship ended on 6 January 2025, as NZSL denied any employment relationship existed. The Authority found Mr Graves was an employee and had been unjustifiably dismissed, awarding him lost wages, unpaid public holiday pay, and compensation for hurt and humiliation.

Applicant: Shaun Graves (machine operator/employee)
Respondent: NZSL Employment Limited (employer, logging company)

Applicant: William Lynch, advocate
Respondent: Lorraine Stewart, advocate

Shaun Graves had approximately 35 years of experience in the forestry sector and initially engaged with NZSL Employment Limited in May 2024 as a contractor through his own company, Graves Forestry Services Limited, which was in financial decline and being wound down. From around September 2024, at the suggestion of NZSL director Dwight Miller, Mr Graves was placed on NZSL's payroll as a PAYE employee, receiving fortnightly payslips, though no written employment agreement was ever executed. Mr Graves worked regular hours, Monday to Friday and occasional Saturdays, using NZSL's plant and equipment, with work directed and controlled by Mr Miller. The relationship ended on 6 January 2025 when NZSL co-director Shane Hooper told Mr Graves his services were no longer required, with no process, consultation, or notice provided. NZSL maintained Mr Graves was always a contractor, attributing his placement on the payroll to an accountant's error, but evidence revealed the accountants had initially been instructed by NZSL to set Mr Graves up as an employee.

1. Whether Shaun Graves was in an employment relationship with NZSL Employment Limited — Status: Established (paras [19]-[30]).

The Authority applied s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the multi-factor test affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited [2005] NZSC 34, examining: (a) intention of the parties; (b) written documentation; (c) control and integration; (d) whether Mr Graves was in business on his own account; and (e) industry practice. The Authority found that from 23 September 2024, the parties mutually agreed to move from a contracting to an employment relationship, supported by NZSL placing Mr Graves on their PAYE payroll at their own instruction. Applying the control test, Mr Miller directed Mr Graves's hours, location, and allocation of work; under the integration test, Mr Graves worked alongside employees using NZSL's equipment and was integrated into their operations. No evidence showed Mr Graves was operating a business on his own account at that stage, and industry practice was not established in evidence. The Authority concluded Mr Graves was an employee from 23 September 2024, giving the Authority jurisdiction over the personal grievance claim.

2. Whether Mr Graves was unjustifiably dismissed — Status: Established (paras [31]).

Applying s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and good faith obligations, the Authority found Mr Graves was summarily dismissed without any fair process. He was given no opportunity to comment on the reasons for his dismissal and was simply told his services were no longer required. The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified on both substantive and procedural grounds.

3. Whether lost wages and other remuneration losses should be awarded — Status: Established (paras [32]-[33]).

Under s 123(1)(b) of the Act, the Authority considered the likelihood that, had a fair process been followed, Mr Graves may have been retained for some period given the short employment history. The Authority awarded eight weeks' lost wages calculated at $37 per hour for 41 hours per week, totalling $12,136.00. The Authority also awarded four unpaid statutory public holidays over the Christmas/New Year period, totalling $1,213.60, as the payslips showed no payment for those days.

4. Whether compensation for hurt, humiliation, and injury to feelings should be awarded — Status: Established (paras [34]-[35]).

Under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act, the Authority considered Mr Graves's evidence of the stress and uncertainty created by the abrupt dismissal at a difficult time to find alternative employment (he did not find work until June 2025), and the fracturing of a friendship with Mr Miller. The Authority noted some financial difficulties stemmed from Mr Graves's failed business rather than the dismissal alone, and found the impact, while real, was not of lasting significance. A modest award of $6,000 was made.

5. Whether any remedy should be reduced due to Mr Graves's contributory conduct — Status: Dismissed (paras [36]-[38]).

The Authority applied the framework from Maddigan v Director General of Conservation [2019] NZEmpC 190 to assess whether Mr Graves's own actions contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. The Authority found no evidence that Mr Graves had any meaningful agency contributing to the unjustified dismissal, and accordingly made no reduction to the remedies awarded.

6. Whether a penalty should be imposed on NZSL for failing to provide an employment agreement — Status: Dismissed (paras [39]).

The Authority acknowledged that NZSL breached its obligation to provide Mr Graves with an employment agreement but, given the somewhat unusual circumstances of the case, concluded that no penalty was appropriate and that the remedies awarded adequately addressed the employment relationship problem. No penalty was ordered.

7. How costs are to be dealt with — Status: Reserved (paras [41]).

The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve the issue between themselves. If unresolved, Mr Graves may lodge a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the determination, with NZSL having 14 days to reply from service. The Authority indicated it would determine costs on a "daily tariff" basis with adjustment upwards or downwards as appropriate.

The claim was upheld: Mr Graves was found to be an employee who was unjustifiably dismissed, and remedies were awarded in full with no contribution reduction and no penalty.

Lost wages: $12,136.00 (gross) (8 weeks at $37/hour × 41 hours/week)
Unpaid public holiday pay: $1,213.60 (gross) (4 days over Christmas/New Year period)
Combined lost wages and public holiday arrears: $13,349.60 (gross), payable within 28 days
Compensation for hurt, humiliation, and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i)): $6,000.00 (without deduction), payable within 28 days
Penalty: None ordered
Reinstatement: Not ordered
Costs: Reserved

[COSTS ONLY]

Lita Beattie (employee) successfully claimed unjustified constructive dismissal and unpaid wages against Matthew Roberts (employer) in an earlier determination. This costs determination resolves the outstanding question of costs following that proceeding, with the key legal question being the appropriate level of costs to award, including whether a Calderbank offer made by Ms Beattie should lead to an uplift above the standard daily tariff. The Authority ordered Mr Roberts to pay $5,071.55 in costs, comprising a $4,500 daily tariff plus a $500 uplift for unreasonable rejection of the Calderbank offer, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Applicant: Lita Beattie (employee)
Respondent: Matthew Roberts (employer)

Applicant: Shaiann Halstead, advocate (firm not stated)
Respondent: Matthew Roberts, self-represented

Ms Beattie's substantive claim against Mr Roberts was determined on 7 July 2026, with the Authority finding unjustified constructive dismissal and unpaid wages, and awarding remedies totalling over $56,000 (including $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 wage arrears, and $1,844 holiday arrears). Following the substantive determination, the Authority encouraged the parties to resolve costs between themselves, but they were unable to do so. On 27 March 2025, prior to the investigation meeting (held 10 December 2025), Ms Beattie had made a Calderbank offer to Mr Roberts to settle for $10,000 compensation, $4,000 plus GST in legal costs, and payment of outstanding wages, which remained open for 10 working days and explicitly warned that rejection could lead to a costs uplift. Mr Roberts did not accept the offer and did not file any submissions in response to Ms Beattie's costs application, despite being given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Ms Beattie sought costs of $5,000 plus the filing fee of $71.55.

1. Whether costs should be awarded to Ms Beattie as the successful party — Status: Established (paras [4]-[7], [13]).

Under clause 15 of schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Authority has a discretion to award costs it considers reasonable. The leading principles are set out in PBO v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808, which confirms that costs generally follow the event and a successful party will usually receive a contribution to their costs, though awards are to be modest and not punitive. The Authority applied these principles and found that, as the successful party, Ms Beattie was entitled to a contribution to her costs.

2. Whether the standard daily tariff should apply as the starting point for costs — Status: Established (paras [6]-[7], [18]).

The Authority's practice is to use a daily tariff as the starting point for costs: $4,500 for the first day and $3,500 for each subsequent day. The investigation meeting ran for one day on 10 December 2025, making the starting point $4,500. The Authority confirmed adherence to this approach absent good reason to depart from it.

3. Whether the Calderbank offer made by Ms Beattie justified an uplift above the standard daily tariff — Status: Established (paras [14]-[18]).

The Authority applied well-settled principles (citing Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell [2010] NZCA 385 and Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Limited [2015] NZEmpC 137) that Calderbank offers may be taken into account in the exercise of the costs discretion, with a public interest rationale of encouraging early settlement. The Authority found the Calderbank offer was made well in advance of the hearing, was a genuine attempt at early settlement, and was for an amount less than ultimately awarded; Mr Roberts had been expressly warned of cost consequences if he rejected it and it was unreasonable for him not to accept. A modest uplift of $500 above the $4,500 tariff was awarded, bringing the total to $5,000.

4. Whether Ms Beattie was entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee — Status: Established (para [19]).

As the successful party, Ms Beattie was entitled to reimbursement of the $71.55 filing fee, in addition to the costs award.

The costs application was upheld, with Mr Roberts ordered to pay $5,071.55 to Ms Beattie as a contribution towards her costs.

Costs awarded: $5,000 (daily tariff of $4,500 plus $500 uplift for unreasonable rejection of Calderbank offer) plus $71.55 filing fee reimbursement, totalling $5,071.55. Payment is due within 28 days of the determination. No other remedies were ordered in this determination (substantive remedies were awarded in the earlier determination dated 7 July 2026).

[CONSENT]

GAK (employee, anonymised) brought employment relationship problem claims against GEA Limited (employer). During an in-person investigation meeting on 16 September 2026, the parties settled some (but not all) of their disputes by way of a confidential settlement agreement. The Authority issued a consent determination recording the agreed terms of settlement as binding orders, while continuing its investigation into the remaining outstanding claims.

Applicant: GAK (employee, identity suppressed)
Respondent: GEA Limited (employer)

Applicant: Dylan Pine and Fintan O'Sullivan (counsel)
Respondent: Jennifer Mills (counsel)

GAK brought employment relationship problem claims against GEA Limited. The nature and details of the underlying claims are not disclosed in this determination. An in-person investigation meeting was held in Auckland on 16 September 2026. During that meeting, the parties reached agreement on some of the issues in dispute and signed a Confidential Settlement Agreement on the same date. The Authority was informed that the settlement covered only the specific identified claims, leaving other outstanding claims and issues between the parties to continue in investigation. An interim non-publication order was already in place before this determination was issued.

1. Whether the agreed terms of settlement should be recorded as binding orders of the Authority — Status: Established (paras [5]-[7]).

Under the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Authority may issue a consent determination recording agreed settlement terms as enforceable orders. The parties jointly requested this, and the Authority was satisfied that the settlement could be recorded as final, binding, and enforceable orders. The determination makes clear that the terms cannot be challenged, and that non-compliance may be addressed by way of a compliance order application.

2. Whether a final non-publication order should be made over the terms of the Settlement — Status: Established (paras [8]-[9]).

The Authority has power under clause 10 of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to prohibit publication of settlement terms. The parties agreed the Settlement should remain confidential to them and their professional advisors. The Authority was satisfied there was no countervailing public interest requiring publication, and accordingly made a final non-publication order over the terms of the Settlement, subject to the condition that it does not apply to the employment institutions.

3. Whether the existing interim non-publication order (covering party names, identifying information, and lodged documents) should remain in force — Status: Established (para [10]).

The Authority confirmed that the existing interim non-publication order, which prevents publication of the parties' names, identifying information, and all lodged evidence and documents, remains in force until further order of the Authority. No change to its terms was made by this determination.

4. Whether the Authority's investigation of remaining outstanding claims and issues should continue — Status: Established (para [4]).

The Authority noted that the settlement covered only the specific identified claims and was not intended to resolve all issues between the parties. Accordingly, the investigation of the other outstanding claims and issues between the parties was confirmed as ongoing.

The consent determination was issued recording the parties' agreed settlement terms as binding orders in respect of the identified claims, with the investigation of remaining claims continuing.

The specific terms of the Settlement are confidential and not disclosed in this determination. The Settlement terms have been made orders of the Authority and are final, binding, and enforceable. No remedy details are publicly available.

Chen-Yun Liu, a masseuse employed on a working holiday visa by two related massage businesses (Bing's Land Beyond Limited and Green Palms Limited), brought claims for unpaid commission wages, personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage arising from mismanagement of a workplace bullying complaint, and penalties for employment standards breaches. The key legal questions were how the remuneration clause in her individual employment agreement should be interpreted, whether Green Palms's response to a workplace conflict constituted unjustified disadvantage, and whether the individual respondents were personally liable for employment standards breaches. The Authority upheld her wage arrears and personal grievance claims, imposed penalties on both employer entities, and found the third respondent (Bing Tian) personally liable to the extent the companies cannot pay.

Applicant: Chen-Yun Liu (employee/masseuse)
Respondent: Bing's Land Beyond Limited (first respondent/employer); Green Palms Limited (second respondent/employer); Bing Tian (third respondent/director); Xiaoxue Ding (fourth respondent/director); Yang Li (fifth respondent/manager)

Applicant: Zong-Pei Zhao, counsel (firm not stated)
Respondent: May Moncur, advocate (firm not stated)

Ms Liu worked as a masseuse for Bing's Land Beyond Limited from 26 June 2023 to 25 September 2023, then immediately for Green Palms Limited from 26 September 2023 to 25 December 2023, on identical terms. On 6 November 2023, Ms Liu raised concerns about a colleague's conduct via a WeChat work group, which escalated into threats of physical violence by the colleague; the employer's manager, Yang Li, intervened but subsequently pressured Ms Liu to apologise and failed to adequately investigate the threats. Ms Liu raised a formal personal grievance on 16 November 2023, alleging bullying and inadequate employer response; the employer rejected the grievance on the basis it was a private matter. Prior to the investigation meeting, the respondents paid $5,057.07 (plus 5% interest) to settle wage arrears, but Ms Liu maintained claims for outstanding commission of $4,678.99, lost wages of $2,574.18, and $2,000 hurt and humiliation compensation. The dispute concerned both the correct interpretation of the remuneration clause (whether commission was a top-up to the minimum wage or a substitute) and the adequacy of Green Palms's response to the workplace conflict. Neither employer kept records of fees charged per hour, which the Authority found was critical to calculating the correct wage.

1. Whether the IEA's remuneration clause entitled Ms Liu to commission as a top-up to the minimum wage, or as an alternative (whichever was greater) — Status: Established in favour of Ms Liu (paras [65]-[70]).

The Authority applied ordinary contractual interpretation principles, seeking the objective meaning a reasonable person would give the words, citing Firm P1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147. The clause used "and" between the minimum wage and the 30% commission calculation; the respondents argued "and" was a drafting error for "or." The Authority rejected this, finding that in the context of the business and Ms Liu's evidence, the bonus was intended as an incentive top-up rather than an alternative, and declined to treat the employer's English proficiency or informal drafting as determinative. It concluded the IEA required payment of the minimum wage plus a bonus equal to 30% of fees charged per hour.

2. Whether the respondents' failure to keep accurate wages and time records entitled Ms Liu to have her commission claims accepted — Status: Established (paras [71]-[79]).

Under s 130 and s 132(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, employers must keep accurate wages and time records and, if they fail to do so, the Authority may accept an employee's claims as proved. Neither Bing's nor Green Palms recorded per-hour massage fees, meaning they could not accurately calculate commission. Ms Liu's retrospective estimation (based on minimum massage service revenue of $105 GST-inclusive, yielding $4.69 extra per hour) was not challenged in substance by the respondents, and the Authority accepted it. Bing's was ordered to pay $3,006.29 (641 hours) and Green Palms $2,016.70 (430 hours) as arrears including commission.

3. Whether Ms Liu was unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment by Green Palms's management of her bullying complaint — Status: Established (paras [80]-[99]).

The Authority applied the unjustified disadvantage test under the Act, assessing whether Green Palms's actions fell within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer. It found that while Mr Li's initial intervention (separating the parties, removing them from the work group) was reasonable, he subsequently pressured Ms Liu to apologise without justification and failed to investigate the colleague's threats of violence. Green Palms treated the matter as private rather than a workplace issue, which was inadequate once it had escalated onto employer communication channels. The Authority accepted that Mr Tian (de facto controller of Green Palms) should have become more involved once it was clear the issue was unresolved. Ms Liu was found to have suffered a disadvantage.

4. Whether there was an ongoing pattern of workplace bullying by the colleague (as a separate basis for the grievance) — Status: Dismissed (paras [83]-[85]).

Ms Liu sought to characterise the colleague's conduct as part of a broader bullying pattern involving other employees. The Authority found the evidence insufficient: Ms Liu's witness (Ya-Ting Chang) had only secondhand knowledge largely sourced from Discord and was not reliable. The Authority found this was not a case of a clear ongoing bullying pattern, though noted the colleague's threats were objectively inappropriate.

5. Whether Ms Liu suffered disadvantage from being required to take sick leave and incurring medical/counselling costs — Status: Dismissed (paras [97]).

The Authority found Ms Liu used sick leave for its intended purpose and received relevant daily pay. The evidence did not establish that her medical/counselling expenses were causally connected to the workplace incident or that she was disadvantaged by taking that leave.

6. Whether Ms Liu suffered disadvantage from Green Palms's written responses to her grievance letters (as a distinct unjustified disadvantage) — Status: Dismissed as a separate head, but incorporated into the overall disadvantage finding (para [95]).

The Authority held that separating Green Palms's written responses from its overall management of the matter was artificial. While it acknowledged the investigation was inadequate, it did not treat the written responses as a separate and distinct unjustified disadvantage beyond the broader failing already found.

7. Whether Ms Liu suffered lost wages as a result of the unjustified disadvantage — Status: Established (paras [98]-[101]).

The Authority accepted Ms Liu's conservative calculation of $2,574.18 in lost wages, finding there was a discernible shift in her work pattern post-incident attributable to her unresolved safety concerns rather than idleness. Having failed to properly investigate, Green Palms bore the risk of consequential income loss. Compensation was ordered under s 123(1)(b) of the Act.

8. Whether $2,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation was appropriate — Status: Established, subject to contribution reduction (paras [100]-[105]).

The Authority found $2,000 was a reasonable and fair figure to compensate for hurt and humiliation under s 123(1)(c)(i). However, it was reduced by 50% for Ms Liu's contributory conduct.

9. Whether Ms Liu's conduct contributed to the situation giving rise to her grievance — Status: Established (paras [103]-[105]).

Under s 114 of the Act, the Authority may reduce compensation for an employee's blameworthy conduct. The Authority found Ms Liu had contributed by posting her concerns about the colleague in the WeChat work group (a public forum) rather than waiting for a private resolution through Mr Li. This gave the colleague the pretext for the escalating threats. The $2,000 hurt and humiliation award was reduced by 50% to $1,000.

10. Whether Bing's and Green Palms breached employment standards by failing to keep accurate wages and time records (s 130 of the Act) — Status: Established (paras [109], [113]).

Both companies failed to keep and provide accurate wages and time records as required by s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This was treated as a continuing breach throughout Ms Liu's employment.

11. Whether Bing's and Green Palms breached employment standards by making unlawful deductions/underpaying wages under the Wages Protection Act 1983 (s 4) — Status: Established (paras [110], [113]).

Both entities failed to pay Ms Liu the full contractual wages (including commission) when due, breaching s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983. The Authority found this arose from the same flawed understanding of the remuneration clause that caused the record-keeping failures.

12. Whether Green Palms breached good faith obligations in responding to Ms Liu's bullying concerns (as a basis for penalties) — Status: Dismissed (para [111]).

The Authority declined to find that either Bing's or Green Palms breached statutory good faith obligations in relation to the bullying complaints, meaning this did not form a basis for additional penalties.

13. What penalties should be imposed and whether they should be paid to Ms Liu — Status: Established in part; penalties ordered but payable to the Crown (paras [106]-[120]).

The Authority applied the four-step Borsboom v Preet PVT Limited [2016] NZEmpC 143 approach and adopted a global penalty methodology given the closely related conduct (record-keeping failures and underpayment). Maximum global penalties of $20,000 per entity were set. The Authority calibrated at 50% of maximum per Borsboom but then made a further downward adjustment because the breaches were not deliberate or knowing (unlike in Preet). Final penalties: $5,000 against Bing's and $5,000 against Green Palms, payable to the Crown. Following Borsboom (at [150]), the Authority declined to order any portion paid to Ms Liu because her loss had been compensated by the substantive remedies.

14. Whether Bing Tian (third respondent) was personally liable for employment standards breaches — Status: Established (paras [121]-[127]).

Under ss 142W and 142Y of the Act, a person involved in a breach may be personally liable for unpaid wages/other money if the employer cannot pay. The Authority found Mr Tian exercised significant influence over both Bing's (as sole director/shareholder) and Green Palms (as de facto controller), satisfying s 142W(3)(e). Citing Labour Inspector v Southern Taxis Ltd [2021] NZCA 705 and Chen v Wei [2026] NZEmpC 133, the Authority found Mr Tian personally liable to Ms Liu for the wage arrears to the extent either company cannot pay.

15. Whether Xiaoxue Ding (fourth respondent) was personally liable — Status: Dismissed (para [128]).

Although Ms Ding was sole director of Green Palms and qualified under s 142W(3), the Authority found the evidence did not establish she exercised real control or meaningful influence over Green Palms; she could not account for the company's conduct and only became involved after legal proceedings commenced.

16. Whether Yang Li (fifth respondent) was personally liable — Status: Dismissed (para [129]).

Mr Li was a manager who took instruction from Mr Tian and exercised only delegated discretion. The Authority found he did not exercise real or meaningful control over either entity and was not a person involved in the breaches within the meaning of s 142W.

17. Costs — Status: Reserved (paras [133]-[135]).

Costs were reserved. Parties were encouraged to resolve costs themselves. A memorandum process was set out should Authority determination be needed (Ms Liu to file within 14 days; respondents to reply within 14 days of service).

The claim was partially upheld: Ms Liu's wage arrears claims were upheld in full against both employers, her personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage (lost wages and hurt and humiliation, the latter reduced for contribution) was upheld against Green Palms, penalties were imposed against both employers (payable to the Crown), and Bing Tian was found personally liable for the wage arrears if either company defaults; claims against Xiaoxue Ding and Yang Li personally were dismissed.

Bing's Land Beyond Limited ordered to pay Ms Liu:
- Arrears of wages (including commission): $3,006.29

Green Palms Limited ordered to pay Ms Liu:
- Arrears of wages (including commission): $2,016.70
- Compensation for hurt and humiliation (s 123(1)(c)(i), reduced 50% for contribution): $1,000
- Reimbursement of lost wages (s 123(1)(b)): $2,574.18

Penalties (payable to the Crown):
- Bing's Land Beyond Limited: $5,000
- Green Palms Limited: $5,000

Personal liability (conditional):
- Bing Tian personally liable for $3,006.29 (Bing's arrears) and/or $2,016.70 (Green Palms arrears) to the extent the respective company fails to pay.

Costs: Reserved; parties encouraged to resolve between themselves; memorandum process prescribed.

All monetary payments to Ms Liu due within 28 days of the determination date.

[COSTS ONLY]

Lee Mark Pownall (employee) brought proceedings against Hutt Valley Youth Health Trust (trading as Vibe) alleging breach of a Record of Settlement, duress, bad faith, fraud, and Privacy Act misuse. The substantive claim was dismissed in May 2026, and this determination deals solely with Vibe's application for costs. The Authority awarded Vibe $1,750 in costs, declining both full indemnity costs and an uplift, but applying a modest reduction from the half-day tariff starting point to reflect Mr Pownall's financial hardship.

Applicant: Lee Mark Pownall (employee)
Respondent: Hutt Valley Youth Health Trust (employer, trading as "Vibe")

Applicant: Self-represented (Lee Pownall)
Respondent: Frances Lear, counsel for the Respondent

Mr Pownall brought a personal grievance in the Authority alleging Hutt Valley Youth Health Trust (Vibe) had breached a certified Record of Settlement (RoS) by delaying a certificate of service, refusing to provide an agreed reference, acting in bad faith, committing fraud, misusing the RoS to cover a Privacy Act breach, and by coercing him into signing the RoS through duress. The Authority dismissed all claims in a substantive determination issued on 22 May 2026 ([2026] NZERA 314). The parties were unable to resolve costs between themselves, and Vibe applied for costs. Mr Pownall also re-applied for a non-publication and anonymisation order in connection with the costs proceedings, which the Authority again declined. Vibe sought full indemnity costs of $18,379 plus GST, or substantially increased costs, while Mr Pownall argued that any costs award should be at ordinary tariff and moderated for financial hardship, as he is unemployed, on a benefit, and the sole parent of three dependent children.

1. Whether the non-publication and anonymisation order sought by Mr Pownall should be granted — Status: Dismissed (paras [3]-[4]).

The Authority had previously declined a non-publication/anonymisation order on the basis that the grounds were not strong, the substantive determination was already in the public domain, third parties had already written commentaries on it, and there was no practical way to achieve what Mr Pownall sought. Mr Pownall restated his application with purported new material developments, but the Authority found these were not new grounds and did not disturb the earlier decision. The application was again declined.

2. Whether costs should be awarded in favour of Vibe as the successful party — Status: Established (paras [5]-[9]).

The Authority applied the principles from PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Limited) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808, which confirm that costs generally follow the event and a successful party is usually entitled to a contribution. The investigation meeting was conducted on the papers and lasted half a day, giving a starting point of half the daily tariff rate of $4,500, being $2,250. The Authority found it appropriate to award costs given Vibe was the successful party.

3. Whether full indemnity costs should be awarded — Status: Dismissed (paras [10]-[11]).

Vibe argued that Mr Pownall's claims (including fraud and bad faith) were improper and that he had been warned in correspondence that indemnity costs would be sought if he did not withdraw. The Authority found this was not a matter warranting full indemnity costs, noting that Mr Pownall lodged proceedings after genuinely believing he had not received the certificate of service as provided in the RoS, and there was no issue with the way he presented his case at the substantive hearing.

4. Whether an uplift in costs above the tariff was justified — Status: Dismissed (paras [11]-[15]).

Vibe sought an uplift on the basis of a letter dated 6 June 2025 giving Mr Pownall one week to withdraw or face full indemnity costs, characterised as a Calderbank-type offer. The Authority found this letter was a "walkaway offer" (sometimes called a "Calderbank lite"), not a genuine Calderbank offer (Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 (CA)), as it contained no genuine compromise — it simply denied liability and demanded withdrawal. Applying Hira Bhana & Co Ltd v PGG Wrightson Ltd [2007] NZCA 342 and [2013] NZEmpC 58, the Authority held that a walkaway offer without genuine compromise cannot justify an uplift in costs. It was not unreasonable for Mr Pownall to have rejected it.

5. Whether Mr Pownall's financial hardship justifies a reduction from the tariff starting point — Status: Established (paras [15]-[16]).

The Authority accepted Mr Pownall's uncontested evidence that he is unemployed, receiving a benefit, and is the sole parent of three dependent children with no real prospect of meeting a substantial costs award without causing severe financial hardship. The Authority found a modest reduction of $500 from the $2,250 half-day tariff starting point was appropriate, resulting in a costs award of $1,750.

The claim for costs was partially upheld: Vibe was awarded $1,750 in costs, being the half-day tariff rate reduced modestly for Mr Pownall's financial hardship; full indemnity costs and an uplift were declined.

Costs: $1,750 ordered in favour of Vibe (Hutt Valley Youth Health Trust), payable by Lee Pownall within 28 days of the determination. No other remedies ordered.

[COSTS ONLY]

Jeffrey Ferguson (employee/applicant) brought a claim against Fire and Emergency New Zealand (employer/respondent), which was dismissed by the Authority on 28 July 2026. This determination deals solely with costs following that dismissal. The parties resolved the costs issue between themselves by agreement, and by consent those agreed terms are now made orders of the Authority, requiring Mr Ferguson to pay $6,000.00 in costs to Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

Applicant: Jeffrey Ferguson (employee)
Respondent: Fire and Emergency New Zealand (employer)

Applicant: Myriam Mitchell, counsel
Respondent: Tanya Kennedy, counsel

Jeffrey Ferguson brought an employment-related claim against Fire and Emergency New Zealand. The substantive matter was determined on 28 July 2026, when the Authority dismissed the applicant's claim. In that earlier determination, the parties were encouraged to resolve any costs issue between themselves, with the Authority noting its usual practice of applying the daily tariff. The parties conferred and reached agreement on costs terms. By consent, those agreed terms are now made orders of the Authority by this determination dated 16 September 2026.

1. Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant following dismissal of his claim, and on what terms — Status: Established (paras [1]-[4]).

The Authority had previously dismissed the applicant's claim and invited the parties to resolve costs, referencing its standard daily tariff approach. The parties reached their own agreement on costs, which they jointly requested be made an order of the Authority. The Authority gave effect to that agreement by consent, ordering the applicant to pay $6,000.00 to the respondent within 7 days of the determination. No independent analysis of the tariff or costs principles was undertaken, as the matter was resolved by agreement.

The costs issue was resolved by consent, with the agreed sum of $6,000.00 ordered to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.

Costs: $6,000.00 payable by Jeffrey Ferguson to Fire and Emergency New Zealand within 7 days of the date of this determination (16 September 2026). No other remedy ordered (this determination deals with costs only; the substantive claim was dismissed in the earlier determination of 28 July 2026).

Eric Paul Tillocksingh, a truck driver employed by Driver Employment Limited (DEL), had his employment end on 11 June 2025 following a customer complaint about his conduct during a furniture delivery. The central legal questions were whether he resigned or was dismissed, and if dismissed, whether that dismissal was justified. The Authority found he was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded him $15,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation and $17,448.75 in lost remuneration, with no reduction for contribution.

Applicant: Eric Paul Tillocksingh (employee/truck driver)
Respondent: Driver Employment Limited (employer)

Applicant: Self-represented (applicant in person)
Respondent: David Holloway, counsel for the Respondent

Mr Tillocksingh commenced employment as a truck driver with DEL in January 2025. On 9 June 2025, the Freedom Moorhouse Store Manager emailed DEL with a customer complaint alleging that Mr Tillocksingh had made inappropriate comments and behaved uncomfortably during a residential furniture delivery. DEL met with Mr Tillocksingh on 10 and 11 June 2025; the parties gave materially different accounts of what occurred. Mr Tillocksingh says he was told to resign or be dismissed, refused to resign, and was then dismissed with immediate effect on 11 June 2025; DEL's witnesses (branch manager Phil Sharp and company director Stuart Biggs) say Mr Tillocksingh voluntarily resigned or left abruptly after being informed he might be required to undergo a drug test. Mr Tillocksingh lodged his Statement of Problem on 24 June 2025; DEL failed to engage with the Authority for an extended period, and after adjournments and mediation (which did not resolve the dispute), a two-day Investigation Meeting was held on 3–4 June 2026. DEL's witnesses gave materially inconsistent evidence and were unable to produce corroborating documentation, including call logs, written policy records, and contemporaneous notes.

1. Whether Mr Tillocksingh resigned or was dismissed — Status: Established (dismissal found) (paras [53]-[68]).

The Authority assessed the conflicting accounts by reference to credibility and corroborating evidence. It preferred Mr Tillocksingh's account overall, noting that he wrote a contemporaneous summary of events, emailed DEL's director on 17 June 2025 seeking written confirmation of termination, and received no response. DEL's witnesses gave materially inconsistent evidence across their witness statements and Investigation Meeting testimony on multiple key points (when the complaint was seen, whether a copy was given to Mr Tillocksingh, whether representation was offered). The Authority found that Mr Biggs' handwritten notes were prepared retrospectively and could not be given material weight, and that DEL's failure to contact Mr Tillocksingh beyond one attempted call, or to respond to his email, was inconsistent with the resignation narrative. The Authority concluded that Mr Sharp gave Mr Tillocksingh the choice of resigning or being dismissed, Mr Tillocksingh refused to resign, and was then dismissed with immediate effect; his subsequent abrupt departure occurred after the dismissal and did not itself end the employment relationship.

2. Whether DEL's dismissal of Mr Tillocksingh was procedurally justified under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — Status: Dismissed (unjustified) (paras [69]-[79]).

The s 103A test requires an objective assessment of whether DEL's actions, and the manner in which it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. The Authority found fundamental procedural failures: DEL did not give Mr Tillocksingh advance written notice of the specific allegations or warn him that dismissal was a possible outcome; Mr Sharp approached the matter with a predetermined view (calling Mr Tillocksingh a "stupid fucking idiot" before conducting a genuine inquiry); no meaningful opportunity was given to respond or arrange a support person; and the employment ended less than 48 hours after the complaint was received. The Authority also found that raising the prospect of a drug test in the 11 June meeting was unreasonable and unconnected to the complaint, adding unwarranted pressure and contributing to the escalation of the meeting. These failures were neither fair nor reasonable.

3. Whether DEL's dismissal of Mr Tillocksingh was substantively justified under s 103A — Status: Dismissed (unjustified) (paras [80]-[88]).

The Authority found that DEL's procedural failures (particularly the failure to obtain a meaningful response and to seek available doorbell camera footage) meant there was insufficient information to make a justifiable substantive decision. On the available evidence, several allegations were denied by Mr Tillocksingh and were unverifiable; others (such as asking whether the woman worked from home and interacting with a dog) were ambiguous without further context. The Authority found that even if all alleged conduct were substantiated, it was unlikely to reach the threshold of serious misconduct absent evidence of threatening body language or similar aggravating factors, and at most might have warranted a letter of expectations. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unjustified, establishing a personal grievance under the Act.

4. Whether Mr Tillocksingh is entitled to compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)(i) — Status: Established (paras [90]-[93]).

The Authority applied guidance from multiple Employment Court decisions on quantifying humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (including Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd, Waikato District Health Board v Archibald, Richora Group Ltd v Cheng, and GF v Comptroller of NZ Customs Service). The Authority found that Mr Tillocksingh suffered moderate humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, supported by his own evidence and a doctor's notes from March 2026 recording ongoing low mood since dismissal. Although the medical evidence was obtained nine months after dismissal, the Authority accepted it was consistent with his oral evidence and that he had attended four sessions of professional support. It accepted DEL's acknowledgment that medical evidence is not a prerequisite, and awarded the $15,000 sought.

5. Whether Mr Tillocksingh is entitled to lost remuneration under ss 123 and 128 — Status: Established (paras [94]-[101]).

Under ss 123 and 128 of the Act, lost remuneration is capped at the lesser of actual loss or three months' ordinary time remuneration unless the Authority exercises discretion to award more, subject to the duty to mitigate. Mr Tillocksingh promptly obtained two temporary engagements (NZ Labour Hire from 18 June to 31 July 2025, and an Ahika Recruitment client from 1 September to 19 October 2025), both of which ended because the temporary work concluded. The Authority found his total actual loss exceeded three months' remuneration, but declined to award more than three months on the basis that no evidence was provided of job-seeking after 19 October 2025. Using IRD income records as the best available evidence (his employment agreement was incomplete), average gross monthly remuneration was calculated at $5,816.25, making three months' remuneration $17,448.75 (gross), which was awarded.

6. Whether remedies should be reduced for the employee's contributory conduct under s 124 — Status: Dismissed (paras [102]-[106]).

The Authority is required by s 124 to consider whether the employee's actions contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. DEL argued that Mr Tillocksingh's behaviour with the customer prompted the complaint, and that his refusal to engage and decision to walk out ended the employment. The Authority rejected both submissions: the fact that alleged behaviour prompted a complaint does not establish blameworthy contributory conduct, especially where the misconduct was not proven through a fair process; and Mr Tillocksingh's departure from the workplace occurred after his dismissal, so it could not have contributed to it. No reduction for contribution was made.

7. Costs — Status: Reserved (paras [108]-[110]).

The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve the issue themselves. If unresolved, Mr Tillocksingh may lodge a costs memorandum within 28 days, with DEL having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would determine costs on the standard daily tariff basis unless circumstances require adjustment.

The claim was upheld in full: the Authority found Mr Tillocksingh was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded both compensation and lost remuneration with no reduction for contribution.

Compensation (hurt/humiliation/loss of dignity): $15,000 pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i).
Lost remuneration: $17,448.75 (gross) pursuant to ss 123 and 128, subject to applicable lawful deductions.
Both amounts to be paid within 28 days of the determination.
Reinstatement: Not ordered (not sought).
Costs: Reserved; parties encouraged to resolve between themselves; if not resolved, memorandum process to follow.

Jarrod Willoughby, a long-serving seasonal meat processing worker employed by AFFCO New Zealand Limited since 1993, was suspended without pay in March 2022 after refusing to undergo mandatory Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) and did not return to work. He only learned in June 2024 that his employment had been formally terminated as at 17 June 2022, and raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal by letter dated 4 September 2024. This preliminary determination addresses solely whether Mr Willoughby raised his personal grievance within the 90-day employee notification period under s 114 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), and finds that he did, directing the parties to mediation.

Applicant: Jarrod Willoughby (employee/meat processing worker)
Respondent: AFFCO New Zealand Limited (employer)

Applicant: Applicant in person
Respondent: Roxy Robertson, counsel for the Respondent

Mr Willoughby had been employed by AFFCO as a seasonal meat processing worker since 1993, working under a collective agreement between AFFCO and the New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union (NZMWU). In early March 2022, AFFCO introduced a mandatory daily RAT policy; Mr Willoughby refused to comply, citing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the collective agreement, and was suspended on full pay from 4 March 2022, then without pay from 18 March 2022. No further contact occurred between the parties after 18 March 2022, and AFFCO signed off a termination form at the end of the 2021/22 season (17 June 2022) without explicitly notifying Mr Willoughby. Mr Willoughby became aware his employment had been terminated only when he emailed AFFCO on 19 June 2024 and received a reply from the Plant Manager confirming his employment had been terminated on 17 June 2022. He then raised a personal grievance by letter dated 4 September 2024, which he asserts was within the 90-day period running from 19 June 2024. AFFCO opposed the grievance on the basis it was out of time, asserting Mr Willoughby knew or should have known of his termination far earlier given the seasonal nature of his employment, final pay advice, and a Donning and Doffing settlement payment.

1. Whether Mr Willoughby raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal within the 90-day employee notification period under ss 114(1) and 114(7) of the Act — Status: Established (paras [6]-[7], [34]-[56]).

Under s 114(7)(b) of the Act, a personal grievance must be raised within 90 days beginning with the date on which the action alleged to amount to a personal grievance occurred or came to the notice of the employee, whichever is later. Section 114(2) provides that a grievance is raised as soon as the employee has made, or taken reasonable steps to make, the employer aware of the allegation. The Authority found that AFFCO did not clearly communicate to Mr Willoughby prior to the email of 19 June 2024 that his employment had been terminated; payslips, final pay advice, and the Donning and Doffing settlement payment were standard end-of-season documents that did not unambiguously signal permanent termination beyond seasonal re-engagement. The Authority concluded that the 90-day period ran from 19 June 2024, and Mr Willoughby's letter of 4 September 2024 was within that period, meaning the personal grievance was validly raised in time.

2. Whether AFFCO's seasonal employment practices and related documentation (final pay, Donning and Doffing settlement, unsigned termination form) constituted sufficient notice to Mr Willoughby that his employment had ended permanently — Status: Dismissed (paras [49]-[54]).

The Authority applied the principle that the 90-day period runs from when the action "came to the notice of the employee" and assessed whether documentary and circumstantial events prior to June 2024 provided Mr Willoughby with clear notice of permanent termination. The Authority found that none of AFFCO's prior communications or documents — including the payslips, the Donning and Doffing payment, or the unsigned seasonal termination form — could be relied upon as clear advice of permanent termination beyond seasonal re-engagement; they were consistent with standard end-of-season practices. The Authority noted AFFCO's established practice had always been to contact employees about the next season and found AFFCO departed from that practice without notifying Mr Willoughby, reinforced by the fact that the RAT requirement was dropped for the 2022/23 season.

3. Whether AFFCO seasonal workers retain continuing contractual obligations between seasons, including an obligation to offer re-engagement, with reference to AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2017] NZSC — Status: Established (paras [42]-[53]).

The Authority considered the Supreme Court's decision in AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2017] NZSC, which held that the employment between seasons is discontinuous but that certain obligations in the collective agreement (including re-engagement in accordance with seniority at the start of a new season) survive the end of the season. The Authority rejected AFFCO's narrow reading that this obligation applied only to employees locked out during a dispute, finding it extended to Mr Willoughby's expectation of being contacted for the 2022/23 season as AFFCO had done for 28 previous years. The Authority found AFFCO's failure to contact Mr Willoughby for the 2022/23 season (particularly after dropping the RAT requirement) was a departure from established practice that reinforced Mr Willoughby's lack of awareness that his employment had ended permanently.

4. Whether Mr Willoughby sought leave to raise a grievance out of time under s 114(4) of the Act for exceptional circumstances — Status: Not reached (para [5]).

This issue was noted but not considered because the Authority found the personal grievance had been raised within the 90-day period running from the date Mr Willoughby first received clear notice of termination (19 June 2024). The Authority noted for completeness that Mr Willoughby had not in fact applied for leave under s 114(4).

5. The substantive merits of the unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage claims — Status: Not reached (paras [6]-[7]).

The Authority expressly stated that this preliminary determination did not consider the merits of the grievances, as the threshold question of timeliness had to be resolved first. Having found the grievance was validly raised in time, the Authority directed the parties to mediation, with any substantive investigation to follow if mediation does not resolve the matter.

6. Costs — Status: Reserved (para [60]).

The Authority reserved costs, noting they could be considered in conjunction with any future substantive investigation meeting if the matter is not resolved in mediation. The Authority also noted that Mr Willoughby, as a self-represented party, had no paid legal costs that could be awarded at this stage.

The preliminary claim was upheld: Mr Willoughby validly raised his personal grievance within the 90-day employee notification period, and the parties are directed to mediation.

None ordered at this stage. The matter is directed to mediation under s 159 of the Act. If not resolved, Mr Willoughby may apply for a substantive investigation meeting. Costs are reserved pending the outcome of mediation and any subsequent substantive hearing.

Desmond Hurring, a former Wrecker/Tyre Dismantler employed by A2Z Auto Dismantlers Limited, brought claims of unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage following his dismissal on 18 December 2023. While Mr Hurring's matter could not progress due to his incarceration, A2Z applied to have his claims dismissed on grounds of frivolousness, vexatiousness, and abuse of process. The Authority declined to dismiss the claims and instead adjourned the matter sine die under clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, putting Mr Hurring on notice that inaction for three years will result in the matter being treated as withdrawn.

Applicant: Desmond Hurring (employee)
Respondent: A2Z Auto Dismantlers Limited (employer)

Applicant: Jason Archer and Lars Hansen, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Emily Gunn, counsel for the Respondent

Desmond Hurring was employed by A2Z Auto Dismantlers Limited as a Wrecker/Tyre Dismantler from 11 April 2023, and was dismissed on 18 December 2023. He raised a personal grievance within the 90-day statutory timeframe and first applied to mediate on 23 May 2024, though A2Z initially refused mediation. Mr Hurring subsequently became incarcerated at Christchurch Men's Prison, facing charges still progressing in the District Court, with no fixed release date. At a case management conference on 18 May 2026, the parties agreed the matter could not immediately proceed due to the uncertainty of Mr Hurring's incarceration. A2Z then applied to have Mr Hurring's matter dismissed on grounds of frivolousness, vexatiousness, and abuse of process, arguing prejudice from delay, inability to progress proceedings, and Mr Hurring's contributory conduct in the underlying dismissal. Mr Hurring's representatives opposed the application, arguing the claims have genuine merit, were filed within statutory timeframes, and that Mr Hurring's incarceration was outside his control.

1. Whether Mr Hurring's claims should be dismissed as vexatious — Status: Dismissed (paras [8]–[10], [13]–[14]).

The test for vexatiousness, drawn from Gapuzen v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services [2014] NZEmpC 206 and Lumsden v SkyCity Management Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 22, requires the whole of the proceedings to be without reasonable or probable cause or excuse, or to be harassing or annoying. A2Z argued vexatiousness on grounds including delay of approximately 18 months before filing, inability to progress due to Mr Hurring's incarceration, ongoing legal costs, and prejudice to assembling evidence. The Authority rejected these grounds, finding that Mr Hurring filed within statutory timeframes, that difficulty in progressing proceedings does not render a matter vexatious, and that a claim is not vexatious merely because it vexes the opposing party (citing AFT v BCM [2015] NZEmpC 234 at [48]). The Authority concluded Mr Hurring is entitled to have his claims objectively assessed.

2. Whether Mr Hurring's claims should be dismissed as frivolous — Status: Dismissed (paras [11]–[14]).

The test for frivolousness, drawn from Lumsden v SkyCity Management Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 225 at [37], requires a matter to lack the degree of seriousness necessary to engage the Authority's attention. A2Z argued frivolousness on the basis that proceedings cannot realistically progress, that A2Z holds strong witness evidence of contributory conduct, that the unjustified disadvantage claim may be out of time, and that there is little realistic prospect of Mr Hurring obtaining remedies. The Authority rejected these arguments, finding that the merits of the underlying claims — including whether dismissal was unjustified and whether remedies are available — are matters for the Authority to determine at an investigation meeting, not grounds to pre-emptively dismiss. The matter was not objectively impossible to take seriously.

3. Whether Mr Hurring's claims should be dismissed as an abuse of process — Status: Dismissed (paras [7], [13]).

A2Z advanced abuse of process as an alternative or additional ground to vexatiousness, appearing to treat significant prejudice from the proceedings' continuation as constituting an abuse. The Authority declined to dismiss on this basis, noting doubt as to whether such a power even exists in this context. It found that lodging an employment relationship problem with the Authority, and the opposing party disagreeing with it, does not of itself constitute an abuse of process, and that Mr Hurring's incarceration (an external circumstance) cannot be characterised as an abuse of process.

4. Whether the matter should be adjourned sine die under clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — Status: Established (paras [5], [15]–[16]).

Clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 provides that if no action is taken on a matter for three years, the Authority must treat it as withdrawn. Given the uncertainty over Mr Hurring's release from prison and the inability to set an investigation meeting date, the Authority adjourned the matter without further fixture. Mr Hurring was put explicitly on notice that the three-year clock runs from the date of this determination (15 September 2026), and his representatives were directed to furnish him with a physical copy of the determination via the Department of Corrections and/or his criminal lawyer.

5. Costs — Status: Not reached (para [17]).

The Authority reserved costs, directing parties to the Authority's practice direction on costs. No determination on costs was made at this stage.

A2Z's application to dismiss Mr Hurring's claims as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process was dismissed; the matter was adjourned sine die under clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, with costs reserved.

None ordered at this stage. The matter has been adjourned without further fixture; no substantive claims have been determined. Costs are reserved. Mr Hurring is on notice that if no action is taken within three years from 15 September 2026, the Authority must treat the matter as withdrawn under clause 14(2) of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

[CONSENT]

A Labour Inspector brought proceedings against Potae & Van Der Poel Limited (PVT), a West Coast dairy farming operation, and its two directors, Mary-Anne Potae and Adrianus Van Der Poel, in respect of minimum employment standards breaches affecting multiple employees. The parties reached agreement on the substantive findings and arrears payments, resulting in this consent determination recording agreed facts, payments made, and interest owed, while reserving penalties and costs for a subsequent determination.

Applicant: Labour Inspector (Sacha Hodgson), Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Respondent: Potae & Van Der Poel Limited (First Respondent); Mary-Anne Waihukapotae Potae (Second Respondent); Adrianus Jacobus Laurentius Van Der Poel (Third Respondent)

Applicant: Jessica Ellison, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Geraldine Biggs, counsel for the Respondents

PVT is a limited liability company operating a dairy farm on the West Coast of New Zealand's South Island, with Ms Potae and Mr Van Der Poel as directors involved in its management. The Labour Inspector commenced an investigation following a complaint about non-compliance with minimum employment standards, and subsequently brought proceedings in respect of ten employees, seeking recovery of arrears of minimum wages, holiday pay, and penalties. During the investigation, PVT failed to provide wage and time records when requested and did not comply with a notice to compile; the "Wage Books" were only supplied after proceedings commenced and at the Authority's direction, and were found to be incomplete in several material respects. The parties ultimately reached agreement on the substantive breaches, with PVT accepting failures to pay minimum wages to two employees, making unlawful deductions from the wages of five employees, and failing to pay correct holiday pay entitlements to numerous employees, and paying all agreed arrears (totalling $75,288.66) plus interest ($13,171.33) by 25 November 2025. The matters of penalties against PVT and the directors, and the allocation of any penalties to affected employees, remain unresolved and are to be determined on the papers in subsequent proceedings.

1. Whether PVT breached record-keeping obligations under s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and s 81 of the Holidays Act 2003 — Status: Established (paras [6]-[12]).

The agreed facts record that PVT failed to provide wages, time, and holiday records when requested and failed to comply with a notice to compile. The Wage Books eventually supplied omitted required information including daily hours worked, current annual holiday entitlements, dates employees last became entitled to annual holidays, public holiday records, and current sick leave entitlements. The Authority accepted the agreed facts recording these omissions as breaches of the statutory record-keeping requirements. The Labour Inspector noted the practical consequences of the incomplete records, including the need to make assumptions about anniversary dates.

2. Whether PVT breached s 6 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 by failing to pay minimum wages — Status: Established (paras [13]-[14]).

PVT accepted that it failed to pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked by two employees, Alexander Gamage and Lance Thomas. Arrears of $10,492.06 were calculated and paid by PVT directly ($7,593.84 to Gamage and $2,898.22 to Thomas). No specific legal test was articulated beyond the parties' agreement on the facts and the acceptance of the Labour Inspector's calculations.

3. Whether PVT made unlawful deductions from wages in breach of s 5A of the Wages Protection Act 1983 — Status: Established (paras [15]-[21]).

PVT accepted that unlawful deductions were made from wages of five employees: Gamage (moving costs deducted without adequate further consultation), and Hughes, Monika, and Turipa (deductions for failure to give contractual notice, made without further consultation with those employees). The key agreed principle was that while deduction authorisations may have existed, the failure to consult with employees before making deductions rendered them unlawful. Arrears totalling $6,982.36 were paid.

4. Whether PVT breached s 23 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to pay 8% of gross earnings as holiday pay on termination to employees who worked less than 12 months — Status: Established (para [22]-[23]).

PVT accepted underpayment of holiday pay on termination for a large number of employees (at least 38 named employees), and paid arrears totalling $24,744.50. The agreed facts record the statutory basis and individual amounts without further elaboration on the legal test.

5. Whether PVT breached s 24 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to pay annual leave entitlements on termination (including by invalidly cashing out leave) — Status: Established (para [24]).

PVT accepted it failed to correctly pay Moonga Chazelengana his annual leave entitlements on termination, including a repayment of three weeks' annual leave that had been invalidly cashed out (one week in 2020, two weeks in 2021). Arrears of $11,810.08 were paid to Chazelengana.

6. Whether PVT breached s 25 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to pay 8% of gross earnings where an employee had not worked a second or subsequent 12-month period — Status: Established (para [25]).

PVT accepted it undercalculated and underpaid Chazelengana's entitlements under s 25, with a re-calculation required after payment of other arrears. Arrears of $1,209.23 were paid to Chazelengana.

7. Whether PVT breached s 56 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to provide alternative holidays for working on public holidays — Status: Established (paras [26]-[27]).

PVT operated a 9-days-on/3-days-off roster system intended to compensate employees for working on public holidays, but accepted that this system failed to provide actual alternative days off in the required circumstances for Gamage, Thomas, Chazelengana, and Namanje. Records were insufficient to rebut the Labour Inspector's calculations in most instances. Arrears of $9,523.20 were paid across four employees.

8. Whether PVT breached s 50(1) of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to pay time and a half for work on public holidays — Status: Established (paras [28]-[29]).

PVT accepted that employees were owed time-and-a-half for public holiday work. PVT's position that reduced duties on public holidays meant standard salary equated to time-and-a-half was not accepted by the Labour Inspector, and in the absence of adequate records, PVT paid the arrears as calculated. Arrears of $9,658.09 were paid across six employees.

9. Whether PVT breached its obligation to provide written employment agreements under the Employment Relations Act 2000 — Status: Established (para [30]).

PVT accepted it failed to provide written employment agreements to Gamage, Thomas, and Kelleher. In each case, the circumstances were recorded: a meeting to complete Gamage's agreement did not result in him receiving a copy; Thomas's agreement may have been overlooked; and Kelleher's short-term casual arrangement was not documented. The agreed facts record these as accepted breaches.

10. Whether interest is payable on arrears — Status: Established (para [31], Schedule One).

The parties agreed that interest is payable by PVT on all arrears, calculated using the Ministry of Justice Civil Debt Interest Calculator from the date of final pay for each employee to 25 November 2025. Total interest agreed is $13,171.33, as set out in Schedule One.

11. Whether Mason Keats was owed additional unpaid wages — Status: Established (para [32]).

PVT identified that Mason Keats had not been paid for work on 10, 11, and 12 October 2023, and accepted that $857.14 (gross) was owed. This was included in the arrears schedule.

12. Quantum of penalties against PVT — Status: Not reached (para [4]).

This issue was expressly reserved for a subsequent "on the papers" investigation and determination. The Authority noted it would issue programming directions shortly.

13. Whether Ms Potae and Mr Van Der Poel were personally involved in the accepted breaches (and in which breaches), for the purpose of setting penalties against them — Status: Not reached (para [4]).

The question of which breaches each director was involved in, and the consequent quantum of any personal penalties, was expressly reserved for subsequent proceedings by consent.

14. Whether any portion of penalties should be paid to affected employees (Gamage, Thomas, Keats, Chazelengana, Namanje, and Monika) — Status: Not reached (para [4]).

Allocation of any penalty amounts to specific affected employees was also reserved for subsequent determination.

15. Costs — Status: Not reached (para [6]).

Costs were expressly reserved pending disposal of the entire matter, including the unresolved penalty issues.

The claim was partially resolved by consent: substantive breaches of minimum employment standards were established and agreed arrears and interest payments were recorded in a consent determination, with penalties, director liability, and costs reserved for subsequent proceedings.

Arrears paid to employees: $75,288.66 in total (covering minimum wage arrears, unlawful deductions, and holiday pay entitlements across numerous employees, as detailed in Schedule One and Part B).
Interest: $13,171.33 (calculated from each employee's final pay date to 25 November 2025, per Schedule One).
Penalties: Not yet determined — reserved for subsequent "on the papers" investigation.
Director personal penalties (Ms Potae and Mr Van Der Poel): Not yet determined — reserved for subsequent proceedings.
Allocation of penalties to affected employees: Not yet determined.
Costs: Reserved pending disposal of the entire matter.
Reinstatement: Not ordered.

Nicholas Stalker, an apprentice builder employed by Elevate Builders Limited (EBL) from April to October 2024, claimed unjustified dismissal, unjustified disadvantage, wage arrears, holiday pay arrears, and penalties after being dismissed by text message with no prior process. EBL did not engage at any stage, and the investigation meeting proceeded in its absence by way of formal proof. The Authority upheld all substantive claims, awarding lost wages, compensation for humiliation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and a penalty, but declined to grant leave to pursue EBL's director personally as that had not been properly raised in the original application.

Applicant: Nicholas Stalker (employee — apprentice builder)
Respondent: Elevate Builders Limited (employer — Wellington building company)

Applicant: Emma Brankin, advocate
Respondent: No appearance

Mr Stalker began working for EBL as an apprentice builder in April 2024 under a written employment agreement providing for 40 hours per week at $28.50 per hour, paid weekly. The first three months proceeded without incident, but from mid-July 2024 Mr Stalker began experiencing irregular and late wage payments, which caused him significant financial distress and required him to borrow from friends and family. Despite raising the issue with EBL's director Mr Nguyen on multiple occasions, no satisfactory resolution was provided, and Mr Stalker was also not always provided with his contracted 40 hours per week. On 1 October 2024, Mr Stalker received a text message from Mr Nguyen effectively terminating his employment, confirmed by email on 6 October 2024, citing performance/misconduct — allegations Mr Stalker says were never raised with him previously and for which no prior warnings or process were followed. Mr Stalker's representative lodged a personal grievance, attempted MBIE mediation, and subsequently filed in the Authority; EBL filed no response, did not provide witnesses, and did not attend the investigation meeting, which proceeded by formal proof.

1. Whether the investigation meeting could proceed in EBL's absence — Status: Established (paras [6]-[13]).

The Authority was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to notify EBL of the proceedings, including courier service of the notice of investigation meeting, service to an email address supplied by the applicant, and a voicemail left for Mr Nguyen by the Authority Officer on the day. Pursuant to clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Authority proceeded by way of formal proof in EBL's absence.

2. Whether Mr Stalker was unjustifiably dismissed — Status: Established (paras [25]-[31]).

The Authority applied the objective statutory test under s 103A(2) and (3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), which requires a fair and reasonable employer to have sufficiently investigated, raised concerns, given the employee an opportunity to respond, and considered representations before dismissing. EBL bore the burden of demonstrating compliance with these requirements but provided no evidence whatsoever, and neither Mr Nguyen nor any EBL representative attended. On the uncontested evidence of Mr Stalker — dismissed by text message on 1 October 2024 without any prior warnings or process — the dismissal was found to be both procedurally and substantively unjustified.

3. Whether Mr Stalker was unjustifiably disadvantaged — Status: Established (paras [32]-[36]).

Under s 103(1)(b) ERA, an employee has a personal grievance for disadvantage caused by an unjustifiable action of the employer. The Authority found that EBL's repeated failure to pay wages on time or at all, and its failure to provide contracted hours, constituted unjustifiable disadvantage. Section 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 (WPA) was cited as authority for the obligation to pay wages when due. EBL provided no counter-evidence or submissions, and Mr Stalker's evidence was accepted in full.

4. Whether Mr Stalker was entitled to compensation for lost wages under s 123(1)(b) ERA — Status: Established (paras [38]-[41]).

Sections 123(1)(b) and 128 of the ERA require the Authority to order payment of the lesser of actual lost remuneration or three months' remuneration where a personal grievance is established and remuneration has been lost. Mr Stalker was unemployed from 1 October 2024 until he secured contract building work in January 2025, a period of 13 weeks. The Authority accepted he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss and ordered payment of $14,820.00 (gross), being 13 weeks at 40 hours per week at $28.50 per hour.

5. Whether Mr Stalker was entitled to compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)(i) ERA — Status: Established (paras [42]-[46]).

The Authority noted that such compensation is not punitive but is aimed at quantifying actual harm. Drawing on guidance from Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 71, Waikato District Health Board v Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132, and Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113, and accepting Mr Stalker's evidence of emotional and financial distress, isolation, and having to borrow from friends and family, the Authority awarded a global sum of $15,000.00.

6. Whether remedies should be reduced for contributory conduct under s 124 ERA — Status: Dismissed (paras [47]-[48]).

The Authority is required by s 124 ERA to consider whether the employee's own conduct contributed to the grievance and reduce remedies accordingly. No evidence was presented indicating Mr Stalker contributed to the situation. The Authority noted that performance or misconduct was only raised by Mr Nguyen after Mr Stalker asked for his unpaid wages, and no prior warnings had been given. No reduction was made.

7. Whether Mr Stalker was owed wage arrears for hours not worked or not paid — Status: Established (paras [49]-[52]).

Mr Stalker provided a spreadsheet detailing unpaid hours and hours not provided in accordance with his 40-hour contractual entitlement. EBL provided no contrary evidence. After questioning Mr Stalker and reviewing text message correspondence, the Authority was satisfied on the proof that he was owed arrears. The Authority ordered EBL to pay wage arrears of $9,834.21 (gross) for 345.06 hours at $28.50 per hour, plus holiday pay at 8% of $786.73.

8. Whether Mr Stalker was owed notice pay on termination — Status: Established (para [53]).

Mr Stalker's employment agreement provided for a two-week notice period that was not paid on termination. The Authority ordered payment of $2,280.00 (gross) for 80 hours at $28.50 per hour, plus 8% holiday pay of $182.40.

9. Whether Mr Stalker was owed holiday pay arrears under the Holidays Act 2003 — Status: Established (paras [54]-[55]).

Mr Stalker was contracted to work 960 hours during his employment and claimed no holiday pay was paid. After questioning Mr Stalker and reviewing his payment schedule, the Authority was satisfied no holiday pay had been paid. EBL provided no leave records or contrary evidence. Holiday pay arrears of $1,399.78 (gross) were ordered, being 8% on 960 contracted hours less the holiday pay already ordered under the wage arrears claim.

10. Whether a penalty should be awarded for breach of good faith — Status: Dismissed (para [58]).

The Authority noted this ground was not extensively argued and that awards had already been made for the personal grievances arising from the same conduct. A breach of good faith was not separately established and no penalty orders were made on this basis.

11. Whether a penalty should be awarded for breach of s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 and the employment agreement obligation to pay wages when due — Status: Established (paras [59]-[66]).

The Authority confirmed the well-established principle (citing Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union [2008] NZCA 580) that failure to make full or part payment of wages when payable constitutes an unlawful deduction and a breach of s 4 WPA and an employment standard under the ERA. The Authority applied the four-step framework from Borsboom v Preet PVT Limited [2016] NZEmpC 143 as refined in Nicholson v Ford, considering factors including the object of the Act, nature and extent of the breach, degree of intentionality, loss suffered, deterrence, and proportionality. The maximum penalty per breach against a company is $20,000. The Authority considered an appropriate penalty was $2,000.00, to be paid in full directly to Mr Stalker under s 136 ERA, on the basis of the severity and impact of the wage non-payment.

12. Whether Mr Stalker should be granted leave under s 142Y ERA to recover money from Mr Nguyen personally — Status: Dismissed (paras [67]-[73]).

Section 142Y(2) ERA requires prior leave of the Authority before an employee may recover wages from a person involved in a breach of employment standards, and s 142Y(1) requires proof of default, breach, and involvement. The Authority followed Gill v Sharma [2019] NZERA 510, which confirmed that further process is required after leave is granted, and that the person alleged to be involved must be named in a fresh proceeding for natural justice reasons. Because Mr Nguyen was not named as a party in the original application and leave was not sought as part of that process, leave could not be granted in closing submissions. The Authority indicated Mr Stalker may file a fresh application if EBL fails to pay.

13. Whether costs should be awarded — Status: Established (paras [75]-[78]).

The Authority noted that costs are usually reserved but considered it appropriate to deal with costs in this determination given EBL's complete lack of engagement. Applying the Authority's standard daily tariff for a hearing of less than half a day, and considering the complexity of the case, costs of $2,000.00 were awarded in favour of Mr Stalker.

The claims for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage were upheld, wage and holiday pay arrears were ordered, a penalty was imposed, but the application for leave to pursue Mr Nguyen personally under s 142Y was dismissed; costs were awarded in favour of Mr Stalker.

- Lost wages (s 123(1)(b) ERA): $14,820.00 (gross) — 13 weeks at 40 hours/week at $28.50/hour
- Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i) ERA): $15,000.00
- Wage arrears: $9,834.21 (gross) — 345.06 hours at $28.50/hour
- Holiday pay on wage arrears (8%): $786.73
- Notice pay (2 weeks): $2,280.00 (gross)
- Holiday pay on notice pay (8%): $182.40
- Holiday pay arrears (Holidays Act 2003): $1,399.78 (gross)
- Total wage/holiday arrears: $13,696.39 (gross) [as confirmed in the summary of orders at para [74](c)]
- Penalty (breach of WPA s 4 / employment standards): $2,000.00 — payable directly to Mr Stalker
- Costs: $2,000.00
- All amounts payable within 28 days of the determination.
- Leave to pursue Mr Nguyen personally under s 142Y: Not granted (may be pursued by fresh application if EBL fails to pay).
- Reinstatement: Not sought/not ordered.

Ross McCullum, a career pilot employed as Chief Pilot by RidgeAir Limited (RAL) for 15 years, claimed unjustified dismissal after his employment ended on 8 April 2025, along with claims for unpaid wages, annual holiday pay, redundancy compensation, and statutory penalties. The Authority found that RAL dismissed McCullum without adequate process, procedurally and substantively unjustifiably, and awarded lost wages, compensation for humiliation, unpaid wages, and holiday pay arrears, but declined redundancy compensation and the public holiday arrears claim. Costs were reserved.

Applicant: Ross McCullum (employee, Chief Pilot)
Respondent: RidgeAir Limited (employer, first respondent); Norman Clifford (sole director and shareholder, second respondent)

Applicant: Mike Harrison, advocate
Respondent: Jeremy Clifford (for the Respondents)

Ross McCullum commenced employment as Chief Pilot with RidgeAir Limited in January 2010 and was the company's sole employee for 15 years, working under flexible arrangements without a formal written employment agreement after 2010. From late 2024, RAL faced declining trading conditions and began discussions with McCullum about a new employment agreement, possible redundancy, and the future of the business, but no agreement was reached on any terms. On 7 April 2025, McCullum's work phone was disconnected and on the morning of 8 April 2025 his work laptop was removed without prior explanation; a handwritten note invited him to a meeting that afternoon. At the 8 April meeting, RAL told McCullum the business was not viable and was shutting down, that he would not be paid outstanding wages, and that no redundancy package would be offered, while simultaneously questioning his involvement with a competitor (Air Kaikoura) and asking whether he would work on a contract basis without providing details. McCullum left the meeting and did not return; RAL subsequently characterised this as voluntary resignation, which McCullum disputed, claiming unjustified dismissal. RAL denied dismissal and alleged McCullum's involvement with Air Kaikoura constituted a conflict of interest contributing to RAL's difficulties.

1. Whether McCullum was dismissed (as opposed to having resigned or abandoned employment) — Status: Established (paras [38]-[57]).

The Authority applied the test from Wellington Clerical Union v Greenwich and Cornish Truck & Van Limited v Gildenhuys: dismissal is an unequivocal sending away at the employer's initiative, assessed objectively as to whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have concluded their employment was terminated. The Authority found that RAL's actions — disconnecting McCullum's work phone, removing his laptop without explanation, and then at the meeting informing him the business was closing and refusing redundancy pay or wages already due — cumulatively constituted an unequivocal sending away. McCullum's statements at the meeting (threatening legal action, not accepting finality) were inconsistent with voluntary resignation. The dismissal was found to be both procedurally and substantively unjustified under s 103A of the Act.

2. Whether the dismissal was unjustified (procedural and substantive fairness) — Status: Established (paras [42]-[57]).

Under s 103A(2) of the Act, the Authority applied an objective standard of what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. RAL failed to provide McCullum with sufficient information about the concerns being raised (particularly regarding Air Kaikoura), did not give him a genuine opportunity to respond before decisions were made, provided no prior warning or proposed way forward, and conducted no proper process. There was no formal consultation process and no evidence McCullum was given access to relevant information before the decision to end his employment was made. The Authority was not persuaded any defect in process did not result in unfair treatment.

3. Whether McCullum was constructively dismissed (alternative basis) — Status: Established as part of overall dismissal finding (paras [44]-[48]).

McCullum alternatively argued that RAL's actions placed him in a position where he had no choice but to leave, satisfying the test for constructive dismissal. The Authority did not need to separately resolve this as a distinct basis, finding a direct dismissal on the facts of 8 April 2025; however, McCullum's argument that he could not safely continue without pay and without his work tools was noted as supporting the overall dismissal finding.

4. Whether redundancy compensation was payable under the draft employment agreement — Status: Dismissed (paras [59]-[61]).

McCullum sought three months' redundancy pay as set out in an unsigned draft employment agreement. The Authority found no agreement was ever reached on redundancy terms; the draft was never finalised or signed, and no consensus was established at any meeting. Further, the Authority found the employment did not end by reason of redundancy — McCullum was asked at the 8 April meeting to consider contract work, and his Air Kaikoura involvement was raised, which would not have occurred if redundancy had been the intended outcome. No redundancy compensation was awarded.

5. Compensation for lost wages under s 123(1)(b) of the Act — Status: Established (paras [62]-[64]).

Under s 128 of the Act, an employee with a personal grievance is entitled to compensation for lost remuneration, subject to a duty to mitigate by seeking alternative employment. McCullum provided evidence that he applied for four roles during the three months following dismissal but was unsuccessful. The Authority was satisfied as to his loss and ordered payment of $21,317.40 gross, calculated at $36.44 per hour for 45 hours per week over the period of lost wages.

6. Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act — Status: Established (paras [65]-[66]).

The Authority was satisfied that McCullum suffered harm as a result of the unjustified dismissal, including significant stress, lack of consultation, and reputational damage. Taking into account current awards and the impacts on McCullum, the Authority awarded $15,000.

7. Whether remedies should be reduced for McCullum's contributory conduct under s 124 of the Act — Status: Dismissed (paras [67]-[70]).

The Authority considered RAL's argument that McCullum's involvement with Air Kaikoura constituted a conflict of interest warranting a reduction. RAL could not provide clear evidence of any actual conflict, its extent, or its impact on RAL's business. McCullum was not contractually prohibited from secondary employment. The Authority declined to make any reduction under s 124.

8. Whether McCullum was owed unpaid wage arrears for his final two weeks — Status: Established (paras [71]-[72]).

There was no dispute that McCullum's final two weeks' wages had not been paid. The Authority ordered RAL to pay $3,279.60 gross (90 hours at $36.44 per hour), plus 8% holiday pay of $262.36, totalling $3,541.96 gross.

9. Whether McCullum was owed annual holiday pay arrears for the six years prior to dismissal — Status: Partially established (paras [73]-[79]).

Under s 142 of the Act, the six-year limitation period applied. RAL had not kept holiday and leave records as required by s 81 of the Holidays Act 2003, and the Authority held this obligation rested with the employer, not the employee. Relying on s 83(4) of the Holidays Act 2003 (which allows the Authority to accept the employee's statements about holiday pay in the absence of records and contrary evidence), and taking into account both parties' evidence, the Authority fixed McCullum's outstanding annual holiday entitlement at 18 weeks, awarding $26,236.80 gross. The Authority did not accept that periods when the aircraft was in maintenance constituted annual leave taken.

10. Whether McCullum was owed unpaid public holiday entitlements — Status: Dismissed (paras [80]-[83]).

McCullum claimed unpaid public holidays for the prior six years. The Authority advised at the investigation meeting that such a claim required supporting evidence (e.g., what work was done on which public holidays), but no such evidence was produced. Pay records provided by RAL showed payments for public holidays (Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, etc.) and McCullum did not dispute or counter this information. The Authority found McCullum had been paid his public holiday entitlements and dismissed this claim.

11. Whether RAL breached s 130 of the Act (wage and time records) — Status: Established, minimal penalty (paras [85]-[86], [88]-[92]).

Section 130 of the Act requires employers to keep wage and time records. The breach was noted but not extensively argued. The Authority considered the penalty purposes under s 133A of the Act and the approach in Borsboom v Preet PVT Limited and Warrington Discount Tobacco Limited [2016] NZEmpC 143. Given the moderate significance of the breach and parity with similar cases, a penalty of $500 was imposed for non-payment of wages (encompassing this breach), payable to McCullum.

12. Whether RAL breached the Wages Protection Act 1983 by failing to pay final wages — Status: Established (paras [87]-[93]).

Failure to pay wages when due constitutes an unlawful deduction and a breach of s 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983, which is also a breach of an employment standard under s 5 of the Act (citing Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc [2008] NZCA 580). The maximum penalty against a company is $20,000. Applying the factors in s 133A and the Borsboom approach, a penalty of $500 was ordered, payable directly to McCullum.

13. Whether RAL breached the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to keep holiday and leave records — Status: Established (paras [94]-[96]).

Section 81 of the Holidays Act 2003 requires employers to keep and maintain holiday and leave records. RAL accepted it had not done so. The Authority found no excuse for this failure, noting RAL is an incorporated company and the director also ran another business with employees. A penalty of $1,000 was imposed: $500 payable to McCullum and $500 payable to the Crown.

14. Whether RAL breached the employment agreement by failing to pay redundancy compensation (penalty basis) — Status: Dismissed (paras [85], [97]).

This alleged breach was advanced as a further ground for penalties. As the Authority had already found that no redundancy entitlement was established and no agreement on redundancy compensation was ever reached, this ground was not made out and no penalty was awarded.

15. Whether Norman Clifford was a "person involved in a breach" under s 142W of the Act — Status: Established in finding, but no remedy available (paras [98]-[102]).

Section 142W of the Act defines a "person involved in a breach" of employment standards; s 142W(3)(a) requires the person to be an officer (e.g., director) of the company. Norman Clifford, as sole director of RAL, satisfied this threshold. The Authority found he was knowingly concerned in the breaches by virtue of his day-to-day role and direct knowledge of McCullum's employment arrangements. However, under s 142X(2) of the Act, only a Labour Inspector (not the employee) can bring a penalty action against a person involved in a breach. McCullum had not sought leave under s 142Y to recover wages personally from Clifford. Accordingly, no orders were made against Norman Clifford.

16. Whether penalties should be awarded and in what quantum — Status: Partially established (paras [84]-[97]).

As addressed above, penalties of $500 (non-payment of wages, to McCullum), $500 (holiday/leave records, to McCullum), and $500 (holiday/leave records, to the Crown) were ordered. Total penalties against RAL: $1,500 ($1,000 to McCullum; $500 to the Crown). The redundancy-related penalty ground was not made out.

17. Costs — Status: Reserved (paras [105]-[107]).

The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve costs between themselves. If unresolved, McCullum may lodge a memorandum on costs within 28 days, with RAL having 14 days to reply. Costs will be assessed on the Authority's usual daily tariff basis unless adjustment is warranted.

The claim was substantially upheld: unjustified dismissal was established, lost wages and humiliation compensation awarded, wage arrears and annual holiday arrears ordered, and penalties imposed; the redundancy compensation claim and public holiday arrears claim were dismissed.

- Unpaid wages (final two weeks): $3,541.96 gross (inclusive of 8% holiday pay on $3,279.60)
- Unpaid annual holiday pay arrears (6 years): $26,236.80 gross
- Lost wages (compensation under s 123(1)(b)): $21,317.40 gross
- Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i)): $15,000.00
- Penalty (non-payment of wages / wage and time records breach): $500.00 payable to McCullum
- Penalty (holiday and leave records breach): $500.00 payable to McCullum; $500.00 payable to the Crown
- Total payable to McCullum: $66,595.16 gross + $1,000 in penalties
- Total payable to the Crown: $500.00
- Redundancy compensation: None ordered
- Public holiday arrears: None ordered
- Reinstatement: Not sought/not ordered
- All payments to be made within 28 days of the determination date
- Costs: Reserved