| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Christchurch 105 |
| Hearing date | 1-Dec-16 |
| Determination date | 28 June 2017 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | A McIlroy, M Geary ; C Clifford, T Nation |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Labour Inspector v Kings Curry House Ltd t/a Tandoori King |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether penalty claim regrading wage deductions lodged out of time - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s various breaches of minimum standards and improvement notice |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Penalty claim lodged within 12 months of the cause of action coming to applicant’s knowledge;PENALTY: Respondent complied in good faith to the best of its ability with improvement notice. No penalty for breach of improvement notice. Respondent incorrectly withheld pay from two employees. Respondent failed to pay minimum wage for one employee. Respondent failed to keep holiday and leave records. Respondent failed to make annual holiday payments for one employee. Respondent failed to pay public holiday entitlements. Employees were new migrants with little knowledge of employment rights. Respondent in business for ten years and should be aware of obligations as employer. Directors personally remorseful. Confident respondent will have proper systems in place for next employees. Directors under stress due to poor health. Breaches largely inadvertent rather than deliberate. Respondent co-operated with investigation. Respondent in modest financial circumstances. $6,000 penalty appropriate. PENALTY: Respondent complied in good faith to the best of its ability with improvement notice. No penalty for breach of improvement notice. Respondent incorrectly withheld pay from two employees. Respondent failed to pay minimum wage for one employee. Respondent failed to keep holiday and leave records. Respondent failed to make annual holiday payments for one employee. Respondent failed to pay public holiday entitlements. Employees were new migrants with little knowledge of employment rights. Respondent in business for ten years and should be aware of obligations as employer. Directors personally remorseful. Confident respondent will have proper systems in place for next employees. Directors under stress due to poor health. Breaches largely inadvertent rather than deliberate. Respondent co-operated with investigation. Respondent in modest financial circumstances. $6,000 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Penalty ($6,000)(crown) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Penalty |
| Statutes | ERA s3 ; ERA s135 ; Holidays Act 2003 s27 ; Holidays Act 2003 s28 ; Holidays Act 2003 s49 ; Holidays Act 2003 s50 ; Holidays Act 2003 s55 ; Holidays Act 2003 s56 ; Holidays Act 2003 s60 ; Holidays Act 2003 s81 ; Minimum Wage Act 1983 s6 ; Wages Protection Act 1983 s5 |
| Cases Cited | Borsboom v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, (2016) 10 NZELC 79-072;Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 30; (2017) 14 NZELR 546 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_105.pdf [pdf 263 KB] |