How WhatsApp evidence sank a company's volunteering defence over wage arrears
Employment Relations Authority member Nicola Craig ruled on 14 September 2026 that a migrant father and son were owed more than $120,000 combined.
The father first worked for the company's director in India, at the director's printing business, from 1996 until 2003, when the director migrated to New Zealand. Two decades later, in 2023, the pair discussed a plan for the son, then around 18, to move to New Zealand for work, with his father to follow later. The director agreed to support them through the accredited employer visa pathway so they could clean at the early childhood centres his company ran across the Waikato.
Both were paid for 30 hours a week, the figure recorded on timesheets they had signed. But the son and his father told the Authority they regularly worked far longer days, sometimes reaching 12 to 14 hours, cleaning centres in the evening and carrying out gardening, water blasting and other outdoor work during the day. The company maintained that anything beyond the paid hours was undertaken voluntarily, partly to help the business and partly so the pair could pick up new skills.
That explanation did not hold up under the weight of the evidence. The Authority pointed to extensive WhatsApp messages from the company's general manager and a supervisor directing the men to specific centres and tasks throughout the day, often well before the evening cleaning shift began. On one occasion the general manager messaged, "what was done today?", a pattern Craig found more consistent with directed work than a voluntary favour.
Craig concluded she was unable to accept that either man worked only 30 hours a week, given the volume of message evidence and the absence of any system for recording hours beyond those on the timesheets. The company was ordered to pay the son just over $67,975 in wage arrears, sick pay, extra hours and leave entitlements, plus $5,000 compensation for the disadvantage he suffered. His father was awarded just over $43,360 in arrears and entitlements, plus $4,000 compensation. Both sums will also gain interest from January 2025.
The Authority also fined the company $8,000, finding the underpayment was likely deliberate or reckless, since the men's timesheets consistently recorded exactly six hours a day despite evidence of longer, variable hours. No penalty was imposed on the director personally, but Craig kept him in the case, ruling that as the company's sole director he had been made aware of the pay complaints directly and so could be pursued for the arrears if the company is unable to pay.
A separate allegation, that the men were required to pay premiums to secure their jobs, was not established. Craig described the evidence on this point as unsatisfactory and made no orders on it.
In weighing the toll this took on the pair, Craig found they were "in a vulnerable position" since their ability to work and remain in New Zealand depended on their continued employment with the company.
