Rimple Rimple v NZ - Kebabs Limited, Rupinder Kaur Bal, Gursahib Singh Dhillon, and Harpal Bal [2026] NZERA 128

This determination combines an unfair dismissal Personal Grievance (PG) with employment standards findings about a "premium" (paying money to secure a job / visa). It is also a cautionary case about employers treating an overseas worker as having abandoned employment, contacting Immigration New Zealand (INZ), and the downstream visa consequences. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Ms Rimple worked for the Rotorua restaurant NZ - Kebabs Limited (NZKL) as a kitchen hand from 10 July 2023 until 9 March 2025. NZKL was operated by family members and the case also involved three individuals connected to the company.

Ms Rimple was recruited from India and obtained an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). She alleged that, as part of being offered the role and securing the visa, she was required to pay substantial sums of money (a "premium") and that those payments were sought by a person acting on behalf of the employer.

Separately, Ms Rimple took annual leave to travel to India for her wedding from 16 December 2024 to 16 February 2025. While overseas she became unwell. The employer later treated her as having abandoned employment and, during an INZ audit, told INZ her employment had ended. When Ms Rimple travelled back via Dubai on 9 March 2025, she was told her visa had been cancelled and she could not continue to New Zealand.

The "premium" finding (Wages Protection Act)

The Authority held the evidence supported that Mr Bal was engaged on behalf of NZKL to seek payments from Ms Rimple in respect of her employment in New Zealand, and that the total of $34,000 (NZD) was a premium sought in breach of s 12A(1) of the Wages Protection Act 1983.

However, to recover a premium as a debt due under s 12A(2), the employer must have "received" the money. The Authority found there was insufficient evidence that NZKL itself received the premium (the payments were made into offshore bank accounts of relatives), so the premium was not recoverable as a debt due.

Even though the premium was not recoverable as a debt due, the Authority imposed a penalty for the s 12A breach. It treated the breach as deliberate and significant, adopted a global approach, and fixed a penalty of $16,000 payable to Ms Rimple.

Unjustified dismissal: abandonment vs fair process

NZKL's position was that Ms Rimple was due back from leave on 16 February 2025 and had abandoned employment by not returning. The Authority applied the high threshold for abandonment: a fair and reasonable employer must take active steps to contact the employee and clarify intentions before concluding employment has ended.

The Authority found the employer did not follow a fair process and did not take reasonable steps to establish contact in the relevant periods. Critically, when Ms Rimple emailed on 4 March 2025 with medical information and a return-to-work plan (including booking flights back to New Zealand), NZKL did not respond or clarify employment status. The Authority held it was objectively clear she did not understand employment had ended.

The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified, and that the employment effectively concluded on 9 March 2025 when Ms Rimple learned in Dubai that her visa had been cancelled because NZKL had told INZ she was no longer employed.

Holiday Act entitlements (sick leave, holiday pay, public holidays)

The Authority also dealt with unpaid entitlements, including sick leave for the period Ms Rimple was unwell overseas, outstanding annual holiday pay, and unpaid public holidays. The orders section sets out the precise calculations and gross sums.

Remedies and orders

The Authority awarded compensation for emotional harm at $14,000. It also ordered lost remuneration equivalent to six months, assessed at $22,620 gross (30 hours per week at $29.66/hour). The Authority found there was no factual basis for contribution to reduce remedies.

Why this case matters

• Premiums are unlawful: seeking money to secure a job or visa can breach s 12A Wages Protection Act and attract meaningful penalties, even where the employee cannot prove the company itself received the money.
• Abandonment has a high threshold: employers must take active steps to contact and clarify before concluding an employee abandoned employment.
• INZ communications can have real consequences: telling INZ employment has ended can trigger visa cancellation and compound loss and distress.
• Orders are detailed and deadline-driven: the Authority set a 28 day payment deadline and a mechanism to pursue an individual respondent if the company does not pay certain entitlements.

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.