He worked seven days a week from noon to midnight - the payslips told a different story
A cook working 70-hour weeks at two Auckland restaurants was paid less than a fifth of what he earned.
The Employment Relations Authority ordered BlueMoonSkyNZZ Limited and its sole director Dil Barala to pay more than $238,000 in wage arrears, holiday pay, compensation and penalties. The determination, issued on October 12, 2026, found the company unjustifiably dismissed the worker and systematically underpaid him across more than two years of employment.
The numbers were not subtle. The worker received $40,442.20 in total wages for a period in which the Authority calculated he should have been paid $229,390 gross.
The setup
The worker arrived in Auckland on September 2, 2023, and started as a cook at Titirangi Indian Kitchen 23 days later. BlueMoonSkyNZZ Limited - which also operates Ambrosia Bar and Restaurant in Beachlands - is an accredited employer. The worker held a work visa tied to the company.
Barala, the company's sole director, arranged accommodation for the worker at a house in Titirangi shared with four other company employees. No roster was provided. Instead, the worker was told verbally what hours to work.
Those hours were significant. The Authority accepted the worker's evidence that he worked seven days a week during his first months, from roughly 12.30pm to 11pm daily. After about two months, the worker was granted one day off per week - either a Tuesday or Thursday.
His unsigned employment agreement - obtained later through an information request to Immigration New Zealand - recorded that shifts could be scheduled between 10am and 11pm, Monday to Sunday, for 35 to 50 hours per week.
The reality ran well beyond that. The worker submitted a spreadsheet to the Authority showing 72.5 hours worked every week from September 25, 2023 to November 24, 2025, except for four weeks of annual leave. The Authority accepted his claimed hours in full.
Then the work stopped
After returning from a trip to India in July 2025, the worker was reassigned to the Beachlands restaurant. Barala's brother drove him from Titirangi each morning at 8.15am and brought him home around midnight.
From November 2025, the worker raised concerns about excessive hours, missing breaks, and incorrect or missing pay. At the end of that month, the company went silent. Barala's brother stopped picking him up. Calls to Barala went unanswered. The last pay came through on November 30, 2025.
No explanation was ever given. The worker continued living in company-provided accommodation until January 2026, trying repeatedly to find out when he would be rostered again.
What the Authority found
The Authority found the worker was unjustifiably dismissed. Cutting him from the roster without explanation amounted to a dismissal, and the company's actions were "not those of a fair and reasonable employer."
On wages, the gap spoke for itself. The company never produced wage and time records, despite being directed to do so. Based on IRD records, the worker's bank statements, and his spreadsheet - none contested by the company - the Authority found he should have received $229,390 gross. He got $40,442.20. The Authority ordered $188,947.80 in wage arrears.
The company also failed to pay for 23 public holidays across the employment period. That came to $17,250 gross. Outstanding annual leave added $16,240 gross.
On top of the money owed, the Authority found several breaches of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The company failed to provide rest and meal breaks. It breached its good faith obligations by cutting communication entirely - the Authority called these obligations "the engine room of the Act" and found the breach was intentional. And the company never provided the worker with a signed individual employment agreement.
The director, personally
Barala did not escape liability. He attended a preliminary conference in June 2026, but then failed to file any statement in reply or provide records as directed. At the investigation meeting itself, he joined by audio-visual link, then dropped off after the morning tea break. The Authority's officer called him multiple times. No contact was made.
The Authority found Barala, as sole director, "knew or ought to have known" the company was not meeting its pay obligations. He was found to have aided and abetted the breaches and was ordered to pay a $4,000 penalty personally - $2,000 to the worker and $2,000 to the Crown.
The company was separately ordered to pay $2,000 for the rest and meal break breaches, $4,000 for the good faith breach, and $1,000 to the Crown for failing to provide an employment agreement.
The Authority noted the worker was "a vulnerable employee" whose employment was tied to a work visa - a factor it weighed in setting penalties.
The fallout
The Authority awarded $9,000 in compensation for the emotional impact of the abrupt dismissal. It declined, however, to award reimbursement of lost wages for the three months following the dismissal, finding the worker had not shown he took reasonable steps to find other work during that period.
There was no finding that the worker contributed to the situation that led to his dismissal.
For HR teams managing migrant workers and accredited employer obligations, the determination is a sharp illustration of two things: visa-tied workers hold the same statutory protections as any other employee, and directors who control payroll can be held personally liable when those protections are breached.
