Authority to workers: Your phone was there, but that doesn't mean you were working
Four restaurant workers bet everything on Google location data to prove unpaid overtime. They lost spectacularly, walking away with nothing.
In a decision handed down on January 27, 2026, New Zealand's Employment Relations Authority dismissed wage claims exceeding $800,000 from four former employees of Dharma Services Limited, a fast-food restaurant operator in the Wellington region. The workers had staked their entire case on Google location data from their smartphones, arguing it proved they worked far more hours than their employer paid them for.
Parveen Kumar, Deepak, Anand Singh, and Jatin Saroha all arrived in New Zealand from India between February and May 2023 to work at the restaurants. They received pay for 30 hours per week but claimed they routinely worked between 60 and 70 hours weekly. Their evidence? Screenshots showing their phone locations at or near the restaurant during extended periods.
The workers' argument was simple: any time Google's location tracking showed them at the workplace, they must have been working and deserved payment. Kumar claimed he worked from mid-morning until 10 or 11 pm each evening starting in February 2023. Deepak presented location data showing him at the restaurant for periods ranging from just a few minutes to entire 11-hour days.
Authority Member Claire English rejected the premise entirely. She found that location data alone couldn't prove someone was actually working. "At best, this information can show the general location of the phone at a given time," English wrote. "It cannot show that the phone was with a person, or what the person was doing at the time."
The evidence revealed serious problems with the workers' claims. There were unexplained gaps in the data. Some workers admitted turning off location services or leaving phones in cars. Photos from social media showed workers at beaches and lookouts during hours they claimed to be working. The hours they claimed also exceeded the restaurant's actual opening times, even accounting for other staff working standard 30-hour weeks.
The case took an unusual turn when it emerged that the workers' flatmate, Faran, had previously acted as the employer's lawyer before encouraging them to file claims. The workers admitted he had urged them to complain to obtain "more favourable visas and some sort of monetary payout," though they felt he was making promises he couldn't keep.
English found the location data "more consistent with the evidence that the applicants would often come into the restaurant before their shift started, or even on days when they were not scheduled
to work, in order to eat pizza (which Mr Lakra provided to his staff for free) and to keep each other company." One worker openly admitted using restaurant visits to see more of Wellington by accompanying delivery drivers. Another acknowledged napping in the company car parked behind the restaurant.
Three of the four workers resigned on the same night in November 2023, having already secured alternative employment at a distribution company where one had helped the others find work.
The employer's traditional documentation—payslips, rosters, and timesheet records—ultimately prevailed over gigabytes of GPS data. All claims for unpaid wages, illegal premium payments, and penalties were dismissed.
The outcome offers a clear message for HR professionals navigating an increasingly digital workplace: being present at a location doesn't equal being at work. It also reinforces that traditional employment records remain the evidentiary standard, even as workers turn to technology to document their claims. Maintaining accurate rosters, timesheets, and payroll records proved more valuable than any smartphone could provide.
