It won the dismissal claim but waiting nearly a year to release final pay still cost this firm
A labour hire firm beat a dismissal claim but was penalised for withholding a worker's final pay, Member Helen van Druten ruled 1 April 2026.
Volha Daniliuk had been a permanent employee of Big Black Sacks Limited (BBS) until 2022, when the company decided to outsource its staffing and HR functions. One of its own staff, Antoinette Tofilau, set up a labour hire agency, For The Boys Limited (FTB), after talks with BBS chief executive David Waddell, and workers were offered an incentive to move across.
By her own account, Daniliuk says BBS offered her $11,000 to end her permanent agreement and sign a fixed term "on-hire" deal with FTB. On 21 November 2022 she entered the two-year agreement, placed back at BBS and due to end on 21 November 2024. The placement was linked to the Dunnhumby review, a Foodstuffs North Island data project.
As the term wound down, FTB tried to arrange a new agreement, but the offers were short and on different terms, so Daniliuk declined them. She then raised personal grievances, claiming in Daniliuk v For The Boys Limited [2026] NZERA 198 that her fixed term agreement was invalid, that she had really been permanent, and that the last-minute, uncertain renegotiation amounted to unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. BBS, the host business, was joined as a controlling third party, but only for the disadvantage claim.
The dismissal claim turned on when her employment ended and whether the fixed term was lawful. The agreement she signed stated:
1.2 The parties acknowledge that [the] employment relationship ends upon the earlier of the following:
a. At the end of the on-assignment placement; or
b. When the third-party client ends the on-assignment placement; or
c. when the Principal ends the placement.
Van Druten found the fixed term met section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. FTB had a genuine reason in the time-limited Dunnhumby review, which made up about 80 per cent of Daniliuk's account management work, and she knew the role was placement-based and due to end. Her employment ended by expiry on 21 November 2024, so there was no dismissal to justify.
The disadvantage claim also failed. Proposed KPIs were draft and open to discussion, Daniliuk conceded none of her terms were changed during the fixed term, and a casual agreement sent to her in 2023 was accepted as a genuine mistake. No breach of good faith was found.
Where FTB came unstuck was final pay. Although employment ended in November 2024, it was not paid in full until 3 November 2025, almost a year later. The determination records FTB's advocate writing that "Volha is on unpaid leave...[and] does not require a work vehicle", and that her final pay would be released if she resigned. Tofilau offered several reasons for the delay, including an assumed extension, unpaid leave, logistical issues, and BBS not paying FTB, none supported by evidence.
"It should not be necessary to chase wages owed." Van Druten said the prolonged withholding caused Daniliuk unnecessary anxiety and affected her mental and financial wellbeing.
She held the delay breached section 131 of the Act and ordered FTB to pay Daniliuk a $2,000 penalty within 21 days. Costs were reserved, with the parties encouraged to settle them between themselves.
