Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Sukhmanpreet Singh, a retail assistant employed by JIT Limited (JITL) in its liquor-store business. Mr Singh worked at the Mount Roskill store from 2023 and later also at the Whangaparaoa store. JITL dismissed him after a 27 November 2024 argument with Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu, one of the company's directors, about annual leave and alleged behaviour issues. The Authority found Mr Singh was unjustifiably suspended when JITL cancelled his shifts from 3 December 2024 on the basis of his "mental stress", and unjustifiably dismissed when JITL later resolved to terminate his employment for alleged serious misconduct. The determination is also important on wage arrears: Mr Singh did not prove the very large hours claim he advanced, but JITL's own records showed 107 unpaid hours, unpaid public-holiday entitlements, incomplete wage and time records, and breaches of the Wages Protection Act 1983. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The employment and arrears dispute

Mr Singh arrived in New Zealand in early 2023 and obtained a student visa allowing him to work up to 20 hours per week. He said he began paid work for JITL in March 2023 on a $200 cash arrangement and later worked around 60 hours per week. JITL said he was initially only observing, socialising and learning store procedures before employment commenced.

The Authority did not accept Mr Singh had proved the early cash-employment arrangement or the extensive additional hours claimed. Text messages and bank records did not sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was working the large number of hours alleged. However, the company was not vindicated on pay. From July 2023, Mr Singh's AEWV employment agreement provided for at least 30 hours per week at $30 an hour, with additional hours possible.

JITL used what the Authority described as an "unders and overs" approach: if Mr Singh worked more than 30 hours in one week, the company treated those hours as balanced against weeks where he worked less than 30 hours. That was not permitted by the employment agreement. If JITL did not arrange up to 30 hours' work in a week, it still had to pay the agreed minimum. It could not deduct later over-30-hours work because of earlier under-30-hours weeks.

The 27 November annual leave confrontation

The dismissal arose out of events on 27 November 2024. Ms Sandhu attended the Mount Roskill store and spoke with Mr Singh about annual leave and, according to her, customer complaints. The Authority reviewed audio recordings, CCTV footage and the parties' evidence about what happened.

A central issue was an email sent from Mr Singh's account requesting annual leave from 2 to 15 December 2024. Mr Singh said Ms Sandhu forced him to provide his phone and typed or sent the email herself. The CCTV showed Ms Sandhu with Mr Singh's phone in her hands around the time the email was sent, and the phone recording captured her pressing him to write the leave email immediately. The Authority was careful not to make more findings than the evidence justified about precisely who typed the email. But it did find that the email was not written and sent at Mr Singh's own volition.

That mattered because annual holidays are to be taken by agreement, unless the employer follows the statutory process for requiring leave after agreement cannot be reached. The Authority held that the Act does not allow an employer to instruct an employee to apply for leave so that it appears the employee wanted to take holidays at that time. Even if Mr Singh physically wrote the email, the instruction to do so was unlawful.

The pushing allegation was not established

Ms Sandhu alleged that Mr Singh pushed her during the incident. Mr Singh denied touching her. The Authority analysed the CCTV footage and audio evidence carefully. The footage showed the front-of-store interaction, including Ms Sandhu holding Mr Singh's phone and Mr Singh standing nearby. It did not establish the alleged physical aggression.

The Authority also considered a later recorded conversation between Mr Singh and Mr Pal that evening. Given how serious JITL later treated the pushing allegation, the Authority considered it unlikely that Mr Pal would not have raised the alleged physical pushing with Mr Singh if Ms Sandhu had told him that had happened only about two hours earlier. The Authority ultimately found the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the argument included physical aggression by Mr Singh.

Mr Singh's comments still warranted further discussion

The Authority did not find that Mr Singh had behaved perfectly. It accepted that some of his recorded comments were strident, aggressive in tone, and inappropriately dismissive of Ms Sandhu and her role in the business. It also later found that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Singh had made provocative discriminatory comments about social or community background.

But the Authority drew a distinction between conduct requiring discussion and conduct justifying summary dismissal. A fair employer could reasonably have wanted to discuss Mr Singh's behaviour, address the annual-leave dispute, and seek to repair the relationship. JITL instead moved to suspend and then dismiss without a fair investigation, without putting the full allegations to Mr Singh, and without fairly considering alternatives.

Cancelling the shifts was really a suspension

After the 27 November incident, Mr Singh emailed JITL saying he would take two or three days off for stress leave. JITL replied by cancelling his shifts from 3 to 15 December 2024 on the basis of "mental stress". The Authority held that this amounted to a suspension.

That suspension was unjustified. The shift-cancellation clause relied on by JITL required at least two weeks' notice before the shift started, but JITL imposed the cancellation for a period that had already begun. Nor did JITL pause to ask Mr Singh, who was already represented by an advocate, for his views before suspending him. The Authority held that a request for comment could easily have been made and considered with little or no delay.

The dismissal process was materially unfair

JITL resolved on 5 December 2024 to terminate Mr Singh's employment and notified him on 9 December. It relied on allegations including misbehaviour towards Ms Sandhu, alleged physical pushing, customer complaints, inappropriate comments, and copying CCTV footage as a form of employee theft.

The Authority found JITL had not carried out a sufficient investigation before deciding to dismiss. Mr Singh was not given a reasonable opportunity, either personally or through his advocate, to comment on the full suite of allegations that JITL said were its actual reasons for dismissing him. He also had no real opportunity to address alternatives to dismissal or remedial steps that might have resolved the annual leave issue, any work shortcomings, or any offence caused by heated comments.

The substantive reasons did not withstand scrutiny either. Customer issues had been addressed through prior feedback and diary notes rather than formal warnings. There was no evidence of formal verbal warnings that further similar conduct could result in dismissal. The allegation that Mr Singh assaulted a female worker was not established on the evidence. The Authority also held that JITL failed to weigh both sides of the behaviour, because it treated Mr Singh's conduct as decisive while not fairly considering Ms Sandhu's own unlawful demand for the annual leave application.

Remedies and contribution

Mr Singh was awarded lost remuneration for 13 weeks, calculated on the 30-hour weekly roster at $30 per hour, with earnings from later work deducted and 8 percent holiday pay added. Before contribution, that came to $10,611.10. Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings was assessed at $18,000.

The Authority then applied a 15 percent contribution reduction. It found Mr Singh had misled the employer about plans to visit Canada as a reason for delaying annual leave, and that he contributed to the situation by comments made on 27 November, including provocative discriminatory language. After that reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 for lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation.

Arrears, employment standards and personal recovery from directors

The Authority found JITL owed Mr Singh $3,210 for 107 ordinary hours worked but not paid, $256.80 holiday pay on those short-paid wages, and $1,710 for public-holiday entitlements. Interest was ordered from 23 December 2024 until payment in full.

JITL also breached employment standards by not keeping complete wage and time records and by failing to pay wages in full when due. The minimum-wage claim did not succeed, because the established shortfalls did not take Mr Singh's overall earnings below minimum-wage requirements.

Importantly, Mr Pal and Ms Sandhu were found to be persons involved in the employment-standard breaches. The Authority granted prior leave for Mr Singh to recover the arrears, jointly and severally, from them if JITL cannot pay. That leave is limited to the arrears, holiday/public-holiday money and interest. It does not extend to compensation, lost-wages personal grievance remedies, penalties or costs.

Penalties

JITL was ordered to pay penalties totalling $7,000: $2,500 for breaches of the employment agreement, $2,500 for breach of the Wages Protection Act, and $2,000 for failure to keep complete wage and time records. The Authority described the breaches as deliberate business practice rather than inadvertence, and noted their effect on a young migrant worker who was relatively vulnerable and particularly dependent on his employer to act lawfully.

No additional personal penalties were imposed on Mr Pal and Ms Sandhu. The Authority considered that the conduct occurred through how they carried out their work as directors and managers, and that additional personal penalties would amount to double punishment for the same shortcoming. Of the penalties, $2,500 was ordered to be paid directly to Mr Singh, with the remaining $4,500 payable to the Crown.

Why this case matters

Singh v JIT Limited is useful for several recurring employment law issues. First, it is a strong reminder that an employer must not reverse-engineer an annual-leave request. Where an employer wants leave taken and agreement is not reached, the statutory process must be used honestly.

Secondly, it shows how audio, CCTV and contemporaneous emails can decide factual disputes that would otherwise be a contest of credibility. The Authority used those materials to identify what was proved, what was not proved, and where an employer had overstated the seriousness of an incident.

Thirdly, the determination demonstrates that an employee's own poor conduct does not automatically justify dismissal. Mr Singh's comments contributed to the situation and reduced remedies by 15 percent, but they did not cure JITL's inadequate investigation, lack of fair process, one-sided assessment, unlawful annual-leave instruction, and failure to establish the most serious allegation.

Finally, the decision is significant on wage arrears and employer records. Mr Singh did not prove the full scale of his alleged additional work, but JITL's own records were still enough to establish 107 unpaid hours. The employer's incomplete records then counted against it when assessing employment-standard breaches and penalties.

Practical takeaways

• Do not force leave requests: an employer must not pressure an employee to create an annual-leave email so the leave appears voluntary.
• Investigate before dismissing: serious misconduct allegations must be put clearly to the employee with a proper chance to respond.
• Use CCTV carefully: footage may disprove or weaken an allegation as much as support it.
• Consider both sides of an incident: an employee's reaction should be assessed in the context of what management did immediately before it.
• Do not treat guaranteed hours as a set-off system: under-hours weeks do not cancel the obligation to pay actual additional hours in later weeks.
• Keep proper wage and time records: incomplete records expose employers to arrears findings and penalties.
• Directors can be exposed on arrears: where directors are knowingly concerned in employment-standard breaches, the Authority may grant leave to recover unpaid arrears from them if the company cannot pay.

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.