| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Christchurch 93 |
| Determination date | 13 June 2017 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | J Ellison ; S Prasad (in person) |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Labour Inspector v KRSVP Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Prasad |
| Summary | PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty against first respondent for failing to supply documents upon request, failing to provide proper written employment agreements and failing to keep holiday and leave records, and time and wage records - Applicant sought penalty against second respondent for being involved in breaches |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PENALTY: Respondent’s written employment agreements failed to give meaningful description of work to be carried out and location of work but breaches not particularly significant. Hours of work stated not sufficiently specific which was significant breach. Appropriate to globalise 10 separate failures to provide proper employment agreements as one breach. Impossible to ascertain from respondent’s records how many hours were worked each day by each employee. Respondent failed to record compliant time and wage records. Not appropriate to globalise 11 separate failures to keep time and wage records because each employee affected in his or her own way. Breach prevented Labour Inspector from ascertaining whether minimum standards complied with. Breach was deliberate and ongoing. Records do not indicate whether public holiday was worked by employees. Respondent failed to keep proper holiday and leave records. Not appropriate to globalise nine separate failures to keep holiday and leave records because each employee affected in his or her own way. Breach less serious because only one public holiday in period in question. Respondent failed to supply requested documents in timely fashion. Prolonged failure potentially affects every employee. Not first time respondent has failed to provide requested documents. Penalty amount reduced to take into account ability for respondent to pay. $25,000 penalty appropriate. No evidence to reach conclusion that second respondent involved in breach. Penalty claim against second respondent stayed in order allow applicant to adduce further evidence. |
| Result | Application granted ; Penalty ($25,000)(first respondent)(payable to Crown) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Penalty |
| Statutes | ERA s5 ; ERA s65 ; ERA s65(4) ; ERA s65(2)(a)(vi) ; ERA s67C ; ERA s130 ; ERA s130(1)(g) ; ERA s130(4) ; ERA s135(4)(a) ; ERA s142W ; ERA s142X ; ERA s235 ; ERA s229(1)(d) ; ERA s229(3) ; Holidays Act 2003 s75 Holidays Act 2003 s81 ; Minimum Wage Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Borsboom v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, (2016) 10 NZELC 79-072;Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Bahn Thai Restaurant Ltd [2016] NZERA Christchurch 222;Norton v KRSVP Ltd [2015] NZERA Christchurch 176 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_93.pdf [pdf 312 KB] |