ERA finds grocer, former director deliberately underpaid staff
A Taupō Four Square supermarket and its former director have been hit with more than $80,000 in penalties and costs after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found they deliberately underpaid migrant workers, sought unlawful premiums for jobs, and failed to keep basic employment records.
The ERA ordered G & G Bolina Limited, trading as Four Square Tauhara, to pay $52,800 in penalties to the Crown, and its former director and shareholder to pay $27,840 personally.
The pair must also jointly pay $7,257.95 in costs and disbursements to the Labour Inspectorate.
The case was brought by a Labour Inspector from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) following complaints from two migrant employees, who were working on Accredited Employer Work Visas tied to the company.
Complaints spark investigation
The migrant workers, both employed as store assistants, alleged they were being underpaid and asked to pay money to secure and keep their jobs.
The Labour Inspector's investigation uncovered wider breaches affecting two additional employees, including mishandling of annual leave and public holiday entitlements.
The respondents ultimately accepted the substantive breaches, which were recorded in a consent determination on liability in December 2025, and the ERA went on to determine penalties and costs "on the papers" without an oral hearing.
Breaches identified by ERA
The ERA found the breaches were not accidental.
The Authority accepted that the director was "personally involved" in each of the breaches of employment standards and was a person involved in breaches of employment standards under the Employment Relations Act.
The company failed to pay two migrant workers at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, with arrears of $8,137.19 and $7,978.22 respectively.
It also sought a $10,000 premium from each worker and actually obtained $10,000 from one of the workers in breach of the Wages Protection Act.
"The Respondents in this matter took advantage of the inherent inequality of power in the employment relationship by failing to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked to the Complainants," the ERA said in its decision.
The Authority also found systemic failures in basic record‑keeping. Wage, time, holiday, and leave records were incomplete or wrong, including falsified start dates and hours that significantly understated the actual hours worked.
"This incorrect information hindered the Labour Inspector in being able to properly calculate arrears and it also hindered the Complainants' ability to understand and access their minimum entitlements," the ERA said.
Alongside the underpayments and premium breaches, the ERA further identified unlawful use of "pay‑as‑you‑go" holiday pay for four employees, failure to correctly pay annual leave on termination for two workers, and failures to recognise public holiday rights.
The total unpaid entitlements for the four affected workers came to $28,139.24. Those arrears have since been paid via the Labour Inspectorate, but the ERA warned that payment of sums already owed should not be given undue weight as mitigation.
In assessing penalties, the Authority grouped 23 admitted breaches into 14 categories and applied established Employment Court guidance on penalty setting.
Starting points of up to 50% of the maximum available penalties were adopted for the most serious conduct, with discounts for cooperation, payment of arrears, and consistency with comparable cases.
Meanwhile, the ERA declined a request from the Labour Inspector that part of the penalties be paid to the complainants, stressing that penalties are not a vehicle for extra compensation.
"Although the Complainants were adversely affected by the Respondents' conduct the purpose of the penalties imposed in this determination has been focused on meeting the overall public interest in ensuring that minimum employment standards are maintained for all employees," the Authority added.
