Siddanth Prasad & Ors v Fiji Food Distributors NZ Limited [2025] NZERA 659

Four employees of Fiji Food Distributors NZ Limited, trading as Krazy Price Mart, succeeded on substantial wage-arrears claims and personal grievances. The Employment Relations Authority found that the workers had generally been required to work six days and about 60 hours a week, were not paid correctly, did not receive proper breaks or leave entitlements, and were later unjustifiably dismissed when the business was sold without adequate consultation.

The workers' hours and the employer's records

The applicants said they worked at least six days a week for around ten hours a day but were generally paid on the basis of 40-hour weeks. The Authority accepted their evidence. It was supported by independent witnesses, GPS information, till records, messages, photographs and other contemporaneous material. The signed timesheets relied on by the employer were found not to reflect the hours actually worked.

The Authority found that the workers were not paid correctly for all hours worked, did not receive paid breaks, and did not receive their correct holiday and leave entitlements. The wage arrears ordered were $85,918.52 to Siddanth Prasad, $136,802.31 to Nishal Lal, $161,552.59 to Amit Verma and $72,090.93 to Mukeshwar Prasad.

Unlawful employment premium

Amit Verma also established that he had paid $8,000 for his employment. The Authority treated the payment as an unlawful employment premium under the Wages Protection Act 1983 and ordered repayment of the $8,000.

Unjustified disadvantage

The requirement to work excessive hours while not being paid correctly, not receiving rest breaks and not receiving proper leave entitlements was an unjustifiable action affecting each applicant's employment to their disadvantage. The Authority held that these were not actions a fair and reasonable employer could have taken.

Dismissal when the business was sold

The employees' employment ended when Krazy Price Mart was sold. Although the employer said consultation had occurred, the Authority found there had been no substantive consultation and no proper opportunity for the workers to provide feedback about the potential loss of their employment. Each applicant was therefore unjustifiably dismissed.

Compensation and contribution

The Authority accepted evidence of significant financial, physical and emotional harm from the long hours, underpayment and eventual dismissals. Each applicant received $32,000 compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Authority considered contribution under s 124 and found no culpable or blameworthy conduct requiring a reduction.

Read the determination

Open [2025] NZERA 659 (PDF)

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz. This summary is general information, not legal advice.