Employment Court affirms $96,000 penalty for Napier developer

The Employment Court has upheld a decision ordering a developer from Napier and his company to pay a total of $96,000 in penalties for multiple breaches of employment standards.

Developer Malcolm Herbert and his company, MAH Enterprises (Fiji) Limited, were ordered last year to pay the penalties by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

Herbert challenged the ERA's decision at the Employment Court, which dismissed his appeal for not taking further steps to advance the proceedings aside from filing a statement of claim.

"No steps have been taken by the plaintiffs to pursue the challenge and nor have they had any engagement with the defendant or the Registry," said Chief Judge Christina Inglis in her oral judgment.

"The delay is inordinate and inexcusable. I note in passing an observation made by counsel for the Labour Inspector, namely that the conduct in respect of the proceedings in this Court appears to be broadly consistent with the conduct of the plaintiffs in the Authority (which was obliged to proceed with its investigation in their absence)."

Victims 'entitled to closure'

The ERA last year imposed a $32,000 penalty on Herbert and a $64,000 penalty on his company for multiple breaches of employment standards involving migrant workers.

These breaches included the failure to maintain accurate wages and time records, inadequate holiday and leave records, and not providing legal employment agreements.

ERA member Sarah Kennedy-Martin described the violations as an "ongoing systemic failure" for Herbert and his company's end.

"The breaches represent an ongoing systemic failure as opposed to a one-off or isolated example of conduct in both MAH and Mr. Herbert's approach to basic minimum employment standards that employees can expect in New Zealand."

According to Inglis, Herbert's appeal to the Employment Court and the ongoing delays after he failed to take steps to pursue his challenge are "prejudicing" the employees at the centre of the proceedings who are facing uncertainty as to their position.

"They are entitled to closure," the chief judge said.

Inglis further ordered Herbert and his company to cover the $9,799 costs that are associated with the failed challenge.