Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Lita Beattie, a qualified chef who worked for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen / The Food Project in Foxton. Mr Roberts accepted work was done, but said the arrangement was not employment. He argued it was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt Ms Beattie supposedly owed him. The Authority rejected that characterisation. It found Ms Beattie was an employee, that Mr Roberts failed to pay her properly, and that his failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation. Her resignation was therefore a constructive dismissal. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The arrangement and the unpaid wages dispute

Ms Beattie said she worked for Mr Roberts for about four months and was not paid properly. She claimed wage arrears, annual holiday arrears, KiwiSaver contributions, penalties, interest, and disadvantage remedies. She said she resigned because Mr Roberts was not paying her wages and that the resignation should be treated as a constructive dismissal.

Mr Roberts accepted that Ms Beattie had done work, but denied there was an employment relationship. His position was that the arrangement was a contracting arrangement, described as a "living contract", and that payments were capped at $200 per week until an alleged earlier debt was repaid. He also said he was supporting Ms Beattie with business development opportunities and that any business support fee formed part of a commercial arrangement rather than employment.

The Authority treated any alleged debt as separate from employment obligations. Once Ms Beattie was found to be an employee, Mr Roberts could not avoid paying wages as they became due by relying on an alleged debt or repayment arrangement. If he considered there was a debt, that had to be pursued separately rather than used to withhold employment entitlements.

Flexi Wage and the evidence pointing to employment

The Flexi Wage subsidy evidence was important. To qualify for that support through Work and Income, Mr Roberts had to guarantee Ms Beattie full-time employment for at least 12 months. Text messages showed Mr Roberts discussing the subsidy with Ms Beattie from March 2024, before and around the time she started working full-time from Easter Saturday 2024.

There was also evidence of an employment agreement being worked on using the Government business website. Ms Beattie said the final revised version was to be forwarded by Mr Roberts to his WINZ contact, although she later understood that a different template version may have been provided. The Authority considered the Flexi Wage discussions and application material a strong indicator that both parties intended an employment relationship rather than a contracting arrangement.

Ms Beattie's evidence was that she started work earlier than planned because Mr Roberts' previous chef had just been dismissed. From 30 March 2024 she worked as Head Chef on a full-time basis, with long days and regular hours. She said she worked 50 to 60 hours per week, sometimes up to 16 hours in a day, and that by May 2024 there was a standard Tuesday-to-Saturday work pattern.

The Authority found Ms Beattie was an employee

The Authority applied s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and considered the real nature of the relationship. It did not treat labels or the alleged missing "living contract" as decisive. Instead, it looked at the whole relationship, including the parties' intentions, control, integration, economic reality, the absence of invoices, the work Ms Beattie actually did, and the communications between the parties.

Several features pointed strongly to employment. Mr Roberts' business needed a head chef after the previous chef left. Ms Beattie was integral to the kitchen operation, worked under Mr Roberts' direction, did not work for anyone else during the relevant period, did not invoice Mr Roberts, and was not operating a business on her own account. The absence of PAYE, KiwiSaver, formal onboarding, or payroll systems was a failing by Mr Roberts, not proof that Ms Beattie was a contractor.

The Authority also accepted Ms Beattie as a careful and honest witness. Her text messages, resignation letter and Authority evidence were consistent. She gave evidence of matters that were not always in her own interest, which supported the conclusion that she was giving honest and reliable evidence.

The unpaid wages became intolerable

Ms Beattie said she had agreed to work at $27 per hour, connected with the Flexi Wage material, though she had originally wanted $35 per hour as the amount she calculated she needed to come off a benefit. In practice, she said she was paid very little and only at $20 per hour, with a handful of bank transfers and some cash payments. By June 2024 she calculated Mr Roberts owed her between $6,000 and $8,000.

The evidence showed repeated attempts by Ms Beattie to resolve the arrears while preserving the work relationship and friendship. She proposed various arrangements, including accepting assets, food vouchers or a reset to minimum wage going forward if she could be paid consistently. Those proposals were rejected. She also approached Mr Roberts' mother, who agreed to contribute money fortnightly toward the arrears, but the plan was not honoured and payments remained inconsistent.

By August 2024 Ms Beattie had reached breaking point. She said Mr Roberts told her he would only ever pay her $20 per hour, below the then minimum wage of $23.15, and would pay her only if there was money left after his own bills. The Authority accepted that the shortfalls were significant, that Ms Beattie had given Mr Roberts opportunities to fix the position, and that she had conveyed that the situation was untenable.

Resignation became constructive dismissal

Ms Beattie resigned after completing a final service on 14 August 2024. She said she had no other job lined up and was not prepared, but could not continue being overworked and not paid. In her resignation email she recorded that she was resigning because of Mr Roberts' failure to pay wages, failure to honour the payment plan involving his mother, and the fact she had only ever been paid at the $20 cash rate rather than the $27 rate represented in material for WINZ.

The Authority found the failure to pay Ms Beattie for hours worked when wages became due was a serious breach. It was reasonably foreseeable that she would resign. That made the resignation a constructive dismissal.

Wage arrears and the missing records problem

Ms Beattie claimed $23,050 gross in unpaid wages. Mr Roberts had no wage and time records and admitted there was no payroll system. That mattered because s 132 of the Employment Relations Act allows the Authority, where an employer has failed to keep required records and that failure prejudices the employee's ability to bring an accurate arrears claim, to accept the employee's claims as proved unless the employer proves otherwise.

The Authority considered it appropriate to rely on that provision. Ms Beattie had prepared a table estimating hours worked between 20 March and 14 August 2024 and deducted payments made to her by Mr Roberts. The Authority ordered Mr Roberts to pay $23,050 gross in wage arrears.

Because Ms Beattie was an employee, annual holiday pay was also due at 8 percent of gross earnings. Ms Beattie calculated this as $1,844, and the Authority ordered that amount. PAYE deductions and KiwiSaver contributions also needed to be accounted for.

Compensation, lost wages and no contribution reduction

Ms Beattie's evidence, supported by health practitioner evidence, showed significant distress from the work situation. She had been in a vulnerable financial position after losing employment during the Covid-19 pandemic, and had told Mr Roberts that working for him was intended to help her improve her financial situation and move away from WINZ support. Her mental health deteriorated, support needs increased, and there was evidence of an urgent mental-health referral.

The Authority awarded $18,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. It treated the separate disadvantage claims as arising from the same core facts: failure to pay wages, paying below minimum wage, failure to make KiwiSaver contributions, and failure to provide a written employment agreement. A single global compensation award was considered appropriate.

Ms Beattie also received three months' lost wages, calculated at $27 per hour, in the amount of $14,040. The Authority found no basis to reduce remedies for contribution. Mr Roberts' attempted justification was that Ms Beattie was a contractor; the Authority had rejected that and found she was an employee. In those circumstances, Ms Beattie had not contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance.

Penalties declined, but interest awarded

Despite the breaches, the Authority declined to impose penalties. It noted the breaches arose from Mr Roberts' failures to set up his business in a way that complied with minimum employment standards, and focused on the monetary orders required to remedy the matter. The Authority also noted evidence that the business had apparently wound up and treated the public determination itself as part of the response.

Interest was ordered on the wage and holiday arrears from the date of the determination until payment in full. That reflected the fact that Ms Beattie had been deprived of the use of money to which she was found entitled.

Why this case matters

Beattie v Roberts is a useful example of the real-nature-of-the-relationship analysis under s 6. The case shows that an informal work arrangement, poor business administration, cash payments, missing documentation, or a supposed contracting label will not prevent a finding of employment if the substance of the relationship is that the worker is working for hire or reward under the employer's direction.

The determination is also important for wage arrears claims where the employer has failed to keep proper records. Where the absence of records prejudices the employee's ability to prove exact hours and payments, the Authority may rely on the employee's reconstruction unless the employer proves otherwise. That can produce significant arrears findings against an employer who has not maintained basic employment records.

Finally, the case is a direct reminder that non-payment of wages can amount to constructive dismissal. The question is not only whether the employee resigned, but whether the employer's breach was sufficiently serious and made resignation reasonably foreseeable. Here, persistent underpayment and non-payment left Ms Beattie unable to continue.

Practical takeaways

• Look at substance, not labels: calling someone a contractor does not decide whether they are an employee.
• Do not treat unpaid wages as flexible business debt: wages must be paid when due and cannot be held back because the business is short of cash.
• Alleged personal debts are separate: an employer cannot simply offset or cap wages because it says the worker owes money.
• Keep wage and time records: failure to keep records can allow the Authority to accept the employee's arrears reconstruction.
• Cash payment is still employment payment: cash wages do not avoid PAYE, KiwiSaver, holiday pay or minimum wage obligations.
• Persistent non-payment can be dismissal: an employee who resigns because they are not being paid may have been constructively dismissed.
• Fix payroll before hiring: no PAYE, no KiwiSaver and no payroll system will usually be treated as employer non-compliance, not as proof that no employment relationship existed.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.