She was told to try Work and Income when her wages didn't show up
A logistics worker quit after months of late pay. New Zealand's Employment Relations Authority found she was pushed out.
When TK Logistics ran out of money in early 2025, the small Central Otago outfit did something unusual - it told staff directly. The company's director sent a group chat message to employees saying the company could not pay wages.
For one traffic management officer, it was the last in a string of missed and delayed payments stretching back months. She resigned on March 2, 2025, offering to work out a two-week notice period. Even that did not go smoothly. Her final pay did not land until five days after her last shift.
On October 7, 2026, the Authority found the worker had been unjustifiably constructively dismissed and ordered TK Logistics to pay $10,156 in compensation, lost wages, and holiday pay, plus $2,321.55 in costs.
Pay day became payday roulette
The worker started at TK Logistics' Alexandra depot in November 2023. She earned $26 an hour in a traffic management role, later rising to $28.50 after positive feedback. She was paid weekly into her bank account.
By late 2024, that weekly rhythm broke down.
Her pay for the period of November 4 to 17, 2024 was reversed on the day it was due. TK Logistics attributed this to the director being hospitalised. The worker accepted that at the time.
Then came Christmas. She was not paid the $1,799.67 owed for December 16 to 29. On New Year's Eve, the director transferred $600 from his personal account. The next pay period went unpaid too - another $1,837.83 outstanding. The full arrears were not cleared until January 15, 2025.
One more cycle went through cleanly. Then it happened again. By late February, the pay period of February 10 to 23 was overdue, with $2,023.35 outstanding.
When the worker texted the director's daughter about the non-payment on February 28, she was told the company was "just waiting on the bank." That same day, the director messaged all staff via group chat: the company had run out of money and could not pay wages.
"I was hoping you could have given us until next week"
The worker emailed her resignation on Sunday, March 2, 2025. The director's daughter responded that she was saddened and texted: "I was hoping you could have given us until next week to sort it as all of would be fix need week and back to normal."
It was not fixed.
On March 7, still unpaid and in her notice period, the worker texted again saying she was "struggling and stressed." The response was pointed - she was told she should have raised it with the director directly, that the business had been turned around, and that she could approach Work and Income for assistance.
In that same exchange, the director's daughter wrote that the company "should have laid staff off last year when we had no work, but we wanted to keep you all in a job because we appreciate you all and we know how hard these times are."
The worker was not rostered for work in her final week. Her last pay of $3,853.24, inclusive of accumulated holiday pay, did not arrive until March 21 - five days after her employment ended on March 16.
What the Authority found
The Authority held that TK Logistics breached the worker's individual employment agreement and section 4 of the Wages Protection Act 1983, which requires employers to pay wages in full when they fall due.
It acknowledged TK Logistics had at times communicated its financial difficulties to staff. But communication was not enough. The worker was left without income over the Christmas period and had her final pay delayed during her notice period. Her resignation, the Authority found, was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of those breaches - meeting the legal test for constructive dismissal, where an employer's conduct is serious enough that an employee's decision to quit is treated as a dismissal.
The dismissal failed on both fronts: the process was unjustified and the outcome was unjustified. The Authority found no contributory conduct on the worker's part.
The money
The Authority awarded $4,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. Lost wages were capped at four weeks - not the 13 weeks the worker sought - because TK Logistics was unlikely to have kept her on much longer given its financial position. That came to $5,700, based on a 50-hour week at $28.50 an hour, plus $456 in holiday pay.
The worker had also asked for penalties against TK Logistics for breaching the Wages Protection Act. The Authority declined. The breaches were not deliberate or sustained, it found, and penalties would be disproportionate.
TK Logistics was ordered to pay $2,250 in costs and reimburse the $71.55 filing fee. The company had indicated during the proceedings that it was no longer trading and that Inland Revenue was seeking to place it in liquidation.
For HR teams, the case is a plain reminder: financial difficulty does not suspend the obligation to pay wages on time. Transparency with staff matters, but it is not a defence when the pay still does not arrive.
