The ERA found both the company and two individuals personally liable for the breaches
A Rotorua kebab shop has been hit with more than $57,000 in penalties and remedies after a man acting on its behalf charged a migrant worker $34,000 to secure her position.
The Employment Relations Authority issued its determination on 4 March 2026 in Rimple Rimple v NZ-Kebabs Limited, the operator of NZ Kebab and Pizza House Restaurant in Rotorua. The case turned on migrant worker recruitment fees, unjustified dismissal, and the personal liability of individuals who manage hiring on behalf of an employer.
Ms Rimple was living in India in 2023 when Harpal Bal, the brother-in-law of restaurant manager Gursahib Singh Dhillon, recruited her to work as a kitchen hand. Between April and July 2023, she and relatives acting on her behalf transferred the equivalent of $34,000 into accounts held by Mr Bal's in-laws in India, with payments tied to securing her Accredited Employer Work Visa and the role itself.
WhatsApp messages between Mr Bal and Ms Rimple's sister gave the Authority a clear picture of the arrangement. In one exchange, Mr Bal said of Mr Dhillon: "he cannot give work to the girl from next week until I receive my payment."
The Authority found the company breached the Wages Protection Act 1983 by engaging Mr Bal to seek these fees as a condition of Ms Rimple's employment. That the payments were made in India and into offshore accounts was no legal barrier, as the employment agreement was governed by New Zealand law. Ms Rimple sought to recover the $34,000 directly from the company, but the Authority declined, finding the money had gone to Mr Bal's relatives rather than NZ-Kebabs Limited itself. A $16,000 penalty was still imposed.
The Authority also found Ms Rimple was unjustifiably dismissed on 9 March 2025. After taking annual leave to travel to India for her wedding, she did not return by 16 February 2025. NZ-Kebabs Limited treated her absence as abandonment without making adequate attempts to contact her. Ms Rimple had been on sick leave, supported by medical evidence she provided on 4 March 2025, the same day she booked flights back to New Zealand.
She discovered she had been dismissed only when she arrived at Dubai airport on 9 March 2025. An immigration officer informed her that NZ-Kebabs Limited had notified Immigration New Zealand she was no longer employed, and her visa had been cancelled. She returned to India. Ms Rimple had alleged the company misled Immigration New Zealand in making that notification, but the Authority found insufficient evidence to support the claim. She later wrote to the company: "I am writing to express my shock and disappointment at being dismissed... You terminated me without giving a single note and did not bother to inform me."
The Authority further found the company breached Ms Rimple's employment agreement by failing to provide at least seven days' notice of new rosters over a period of roughly 10 months. The Authority also found NZKL committed a further breach of clause 6.1 of the employment agreement regarding consecutive days off. Ms Rimple had also alleged the company failed to provide her with a two-week notice period. No penalty was imposed for the employment agreement breaches, with the Authority noting they were unintentional and that Ms Rimple candidly acknowledged she raised these particular claims only because of the unfair dismissal.
Total remedies ordered against NZ-Kebabs Limited included $14,000 in compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings, $22,620 representing six months' lost wages, and separate sums for unpaid sick leave, public holidays, and annual holiday pay, alongside the $16,000 Wages Protection Act penalty and interest. The Authority also found no contributory conduct by Ms Rimple warranting a reduction in remedies.
If NZ-Kebabs Limited does not pay the sick leave, annual holiday, and public holiday sums within 28 days, the Authority granted leave for Ms Rimple to recover $4,577.12 from Mr Dhillon personally.
Both Mr Bal and Mr Dhillon were found to be personally involved in the employment standards breaches. Mr Bal held no formal director or employee role within the company, but the Authority found he occupied a position with NZ-Kebabs Limited because he had authority to act on its behalf with regard to employment related matters concerning Ms Rimple. Mr Dhillon, as restaurant manager, had knowledge of the essential facts concerning both the premium payments and Ms Rimple's unpaid leave entitlements.
The case confirms that fee-based migrant recruitment arrangements, even when conducted entirely offshore, fall within New Zealand's employment laws. Employers must make genuine, documented efforts to contact an employee before concluding abandonment, and any notification to Immigration New Zealand about a worker's status carries direct consequences for that individual.
