Siddanth Prasad and others v Fiji Food Distributors NZ Limited (Krazy Price Mart) [2025] NZERA 659 - $456k wage arrears, $32k compensation each, $8k unlawful premium, director "person involved"

Quick facts

• Citation: [2025] NZERA 659
• Registry: Christchurch
• Member: Peter van Keulen
• Investigation meeting: 5 to 9 May 2025
• Determination date: 20 October 2025
• Applicants: Siddanth Prasad, Nishal Nikesh Lal, Amit Verma, Mukeshwar Prasad
• Respondents: Fiji Food Distributors NZ Limited (FFDL), Ameer Ali, Janice Ali

Business context: Krazy Price Mart

FFDL operated a retail store (Krazy Price Mart) selling imported Fijian food and other products, as well as a kitchen selling meals and snacks. The store also operated a barber shop and a Western Union money transfer service.

What the workers alleged

• Hours and pay: Working at least six days per week and around 10 hours per day, but not being paid for all hours worked.
• Breaks: No proper rest and meal breaks.
• Leave and holidays: Annual leave, public holidays, alternative days, and other leave entitlements not calculated/paid correctly.
• Exit on sale: The store was sold in September 2021 and their employment was terminated without adequate consultation (unjustified dismissal).
• Unlawful premium: Mr Verma alleged he was required to pay $8,000 as a premium for being employed.

Personal grievances upheld

The ERA found FFDL's conduct caused an unjustified disadvantage, including requiring excessive hours and failing to meet minimum employment standards. The ERA also found each applicant was unjustifiably dismissed when the business was sold on 1 September 2021, because there was no adequate consultation about the sale and the potential loss of employment.

The applicants took up employment with the purchaser, and the ERA was not satisfied they lost remuneration as a result of the dismissal. The key remedy awarded was compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, alongside very substantial wage arrears.

Money orders (summary)

Director "person involved" findings

The applicants sought orders against Mr and Mrs Ali personally. The ERA found Mr Ali was involved in the day-to-day management and decisions about work and pay, and was a "person involved" in the employment standards breaches. The ERA found Mrs Ali was not a person involved on the evidence.

Penalties and costs

• Penalties: The ERA indicated penalties may be considered against FFDL for specified breaches (including good faith breaches, a Wages Protection Act breach for the premium, and global Holidays Act breaches). The ERA did not order penalties against Mr Ali at this stage due to a lack of evidence that penalties were sought from him within 12 months, and invited further submissions on penalties.
• Corporate veil: The ERA did not determine the request to pierce the corporate veil for compensation orders at this stage, noting this may arise later at enforcement and raising jurisdiction concerns.
• Costs: Costs were reserved and the ERA set a standard timetable for costs memoranda if the parties cannot agree.