Not the director, but her husband must personally cover $55k in wage arrears
A director's husband, not the director, must personally pay a car groomer over $55,000, Employment Relations Authority member Simon Greening ruled on 31 July 2026.
The applicant, a migrant worker employed as a car groomer and detailer from June 2023, brought a claim against an Auckland car grooming and detailing company that operated seven days a week, from 8am to 7pm, after it was placed into liquidation by the court in March 2026, leaving more than $950,000 owed to unsecured creditors. His employment agreement, tied to a work visa, guaranteed him 40 hours of work a week at $29.70 an hour.
The company's director was named as a second respondent, but Greening found there was insufficient evidence she had aided or abetted the breaches. Her husband, who was not himself a director, was a different story: the applicant said he directed the work, managed the business and ran the payroll, and the Authority agreed. That made him, not his wife, liable under the Act's provisions covering people involved in a breach of employment standards. The applicant told the Authority he had met the director on only "two or three occasions".
Neither the director nor her husband took part in the Authority's investigation. The Authority tried to contact them ahead of a case management conference but had no success, and they did not attend either that conference or the investigation meeting in Auckland on 26 June 2026, despite being given a fair opportunity to do so. The determination was made largely on the applicant's uncontested written evidence.
The applicant relied on notes recorded on his phone, bank statements and WhatsApp messages to establish what he was owed. Some of the messages referred to the figure 23, which he said was the actual hourly amount he was paid against his contracted rate of $29.70. Other messages showed him asking to be paid so he could cover his living costs. Greening accepted all of the applicant's evidence about his pay, hours and days worked, noting the company had not produced any wage and time records.
The Authority found the company breached clause 7.2 (hours of work) and clause 8.1 (hourly rate) of the employment agreement, along with section 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 and minimum entitlement provisions of the Holidays Act 2003. Greening described "a sustained pattern of paying [the applicant] less than his contractual rate" as an aggravating factor, alongside the applicant's vulnerability as a visa holder.
Because the company could not pay, the Authority granted the applicant leave to recover $39,440.69 in wage arrears, $5,234.63 in public holiday payments and $7,717.11 in annual holiday pay from the husband, along with a $3,000 penalty for aiding and abetting the breaches. Greening ordered payment of the full $55,392.43 within 28 days, and reserved the question of costs.
