In Singh v Bluemoonskynzz Ltd [2026] NZERA 753, the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) considered serious failures involving wage payments, working hours, record-keeping, rest and meal breaks, holiday entitlements, good faith and dismissal. The determination also highlights the potential personal consequences for directors who knowingly participate in employment breaches.

The summary

A restaurant employer was ordered to pay a former cook more than $237,000 in wage arrears, holiday entitlements, compensation and penalties after the Authority found that he had worked more than 70 hours a week, received only a fraction of the wages owed, was not given proper breaks or a signed employment agreement, and was effectively dismissed when the employer stopped offering work and communicating with him.

The sole director was also personally ordered to pay a $4,000 penalty.

The central lesson for employers is that failures involving pay, records and process can compound quickly, particularly where an employer does not participate properly in the Authority’s investigation.

What happened

Amrit Pal Singh came to New Zealand on a work visa to work as a cook for Bluemoonskynzz Limited (employer), which operated two Auckland restaurants. The company was an accredited employer and its sole director, Dil Barala, arranged accommodation for Mr Singh, which he shared with other employees.

Mr Singh began work in September 2023. Although the proposed employment agreement stated that he would work between 35 and 50 hours a week at $28 per hour, the Authority accepted his evidence that he regularly worked more than 70 hours a week.

He initially worked seven days a week and, after approximately two months, was permitted one day off each week. He did not receive written rosters. Instead, the employer told him verbally when he was required to work.

In July 2025, after returning from leave in India, Mr Singh was moved from the Titirangi restaurant to another restaurant in Beachlands. He said he was collected from his accommodation at approximately 8.15am each morning and returned at around midnight.

By November 2025, Mr Singh had raised concerns about his hours, lack of breaks and incorrect or missing wage payments. Later that month, the employer stopped communicating with him and stopped providing work. Mr Singh tried repeatedly to contact the director but received no explanation. His final wage payment was made on 30 November 2025.

Mr Singh’s lawyer later requested his employment agreement, payslips, wage and time records, and holiday and leave records. The employer did not respond. It also failed to provide the records when directed to do so by the Authority.

Although Mr Singh’s personal grievance was not raised within the usual 90-day period, the Authority allowed it to proceed.

Mr Singh had not been provided with an employment agreement containing the required explanation about how to resolve employment relationship problems. The Authority found this amounted to an exceptional circumstance under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (Act). There was also uncertainty about when the employment relationship had ended, and the short delay caused no prejudice to the employer.

What the Authority found and why

The Authority accepted Mr Singh’s evidence across the central aspects of his claim. The employer did not file a statement in reply, did not produce the employment records directed by the Authority, and did not provide its own witness evidence. The director joined the investigation meeting remotely but left during an adjournment and could not be contacted again.

Mr Singh was unjustifiably dismissed

The Authority found that the employer’s refusal or failure to place Mr Singh back on the roster amounted to a dismissal.

The employer gave him no explanation, did not raise any employment concerns and followed no process before withdrawing his work. Its actions were not those of a fair and reasonable employer under section 103A of the Act.

The Authority also found that the employer breached its duty of good faith. Section 4 of the Act requires employers and employees to be active, constructive, responsive and communicative. Abruptly stopping an employee’s work and refusing to communicate about their employment was inconsistent with those obligations.

The employer owed substantial wage arrears

Mr Singh’s proposed employment agreement recorded an hourly rate of $28. The employer had not kept or produced reliable wage and time records, which made it difficult for Mr Singh to calculate his claim precisely.

Mr Singh supplied a spreadsheet recording 72.5 hours of work each week, except during a period of annual leave. He also provided bank statements, Inland Revenue information and evidence about the restaurants’ operating hours and his duties.

The Authority found that Mr Singh should have received $229,390 gross during his employment. His bank records showed that he had received only $40,442.20. The resulting wage arrears were $188,947.80 gross.

This is an important evidential point for employers. Where an employer fails to keep or produce the employment records required by law, the Authority may accept the employee’s evidence about the hours worked and payments received if that evidence is credible.

Rest and meal break requirements were breached

The Authority accepted that Mr Singh regularly worked more than eight hours a day and was not provided with the rest and meal breaks required under the Act.

Rest and meal breaks are statutory minimum entitlements. They are intended to support employees’ wellbeing and cannot simply be disregarded because a workplace is busy or operates for extended hours. The Authority found the employer’s breach was intentional.

No compliant employment agreement was provided

The employer had supplied an unsigned proposed agreement to Immigration New Zealand, but there was no evidence that Mr Singh had signed it or received a completed individual employment agreement.

Employers must provide every employee with a written employment agreement containing the required statutory provisions. Supplying a proposed agreement to a third party does not satisfy that obligation.

Holiday entitlements remained unpaid

The Authority found that Mr Singh worked on 23 public holidays during his employment and had not received the payments due for that work. It awarded $17,250 gross for unpaid public holiday entitlements.

It also found that, apart from one trip to India, Mr Singh had not taken annual holidays and had not been paid his outstanding annual holiday entitlement. It awarded a further $16,240 gross.

The director was personally liable for a penalty

The Authority found that Mr Barala knew, or ought to have known, that the company was not paying Mr Singh correctly or on time.

As the sole director and the person exercising control over payroll and employment matters, he had the ability to ensure compliance. The Authority found that he had aided and abetted the company’s breaches and imposed a personal penalty under section 134 of the Act.

This finding is a reminder that operating through a company does not necessarily protect directors or managers who knowingly participate in breaches of employment obligations.

The remedies

The company was ordered to pay Mr Singh:

• $188,947.80 gross in wage arrears;
• $17,250 gross for unpaid public holiday entitlements;
• $16,240 gross for outstanding annual holidays;
• $9,000 compensation for hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings arising from the unjustified dismissal;
• $2,000 as a penalty for failing to provide required rest and meal breaks;
• $4,000 as a penalty for breaching the duty of good faith; and
• Interest on the wage arrears and holiday payments.

The company was also ordered to pay a $1,000 penalty to the Crown for failing to provide an Individual Employment Agreement.

The director was personally ordered to pay a $4,000 penalty, divided equally between Mr Singh and the Crown.

In total, the company was ordered to pay Mr Singh $237,437.80 plus interest. When the director’s $2,000 payment to Mr Singh is included, Mr Singh’s total award was $239,437.80 plus interest. A further $3,000 in penalties was payable to the Crown.

The Authority did not award lost wages following the dismissal because Mr Singh did not provide sufficient evidence that he had taken reasonable steps to find alternative work and reduce his loss. Costs were reserved, meaning they may be determined separately if the parties cannot agree.

What should have happened

The employer should have provided Mr Singh with a compliant written employment agreement before he started work, ensuring both parties signed and retained a copy.

It should then have:

1. Established written rosters that reflected Mr Singh’s actual working hours.
2. Maintained accurate, contemporaneous wage, time, holiday and leave records.
3. Paid Mr Singh for every hour worked at the agreed rate and on the agreed payday.
4. Provided the statutory rest and meal breaks applicable to his working day.
5. Correctly calculated and paid all annual holiday and public holiday entitlements.
6. Responded promptly when Mr Singh raised concerns about his hours and pay.
7. Investigated his concerns and corrected any payroll errors.
8. Followed a fair process before considering any action that might end his employment.

If there was a genuine reason why the employer could no longer provide work, it needed to explain that reason, consult with Mr Singh, provide relevant information, genuinely consider his feedback and explore available alternatives. Simply removing him from the roster and ceasing communication exposed the business to an unjustified dismissal claim.

Once proceedings began, the employer should also have complied with the Authority’s directions, produced the required records, filed evidence and participated fully in the investigation. Its failure to do so left Mr Singh’s evidence largely unanswered.

Practical takeaways for employers

• Reconcile rosters, time records and payroll: Regularly check that recorded hours match the hours employees actually work and that every hour is paid correctly.
• Keep complete employment records: Maintain signed employment agreements, wage and time records, holiday and leave records, payslips and evidence of public holiday payments. Poor records can make it much harder to defend a wage claim.
• Treat removal from the roster as a serious employment action: Taking away an employee’s work may amount to dismissal, even if the employer never expressly says the employment has ended.
• Act on payroll and workload concerns promptly: Investigate concerns, communicate clearly and correct confirmed errors. Ignoring an employee’s complaint may create additional good-faith and penalty exposure.
• Ensure directors and managers understand personal liability: Decision makers who knowingly authorise, assist or permit employment breaches may face penalties personally, particularly where vulnerable workers or serious minimum entitlement breaches are involved.

Immigration implications

This case also carries an important warning for employers accredited to employ migrant workers. The employer was an accredited employer and Mr Singh’s employment was connected to his work visa. The Authority specifically recognised his vulnerability as a migrant worker when assessing penalties.

Accredited employers are required to comply with New Zealand employment standards as part of maintaining their accreditation. Employment law sanctions can therefore have consequences beyond the immediate employment claim, including restrictions on an employer’s ability to support future migrant visa applications. Serious or repeated compliance issues may also put employer accreditation at risk.

For employers relying on migrant labour, the message is particularly important: employment, payroll and immigration compliance should not be treated as separate systems. An employment law failure involving wages, hours, holidays or employment conditions can also create immigration compliance risk.

---

This article discusses [2026] NZERA 753, a determination of the Employment Relations Authority, and is provided for general information. It is not legal advice. Employers employing migrant workers should seek specific advice tailored to their circumstances.

Need support? If you would like assistance with any employment matter relating to employing migrant workers, being an accredited employer with Immigration New Zealand or managing your workforce then please get in touch with our team. Email admin@cmalaw.co.nz or phone 03 211 0153.

Disclaimer: This update provides commentary on employment law and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.