Ruling puts shareholders who direct staff on notice of personal liability
The Employment Relations Authority ordered a Taupo grocery operator and its shareholder to pay more than $80,000 in penalties on 27 March 2026.
In Labour Inspector v G & G Bolina Limited t/a Four Square Tuahara [2026] NZERA 183, the Authority assessed penalties against G & G Bolina Limited and its 50-percent shareholder, Gurvinderpal Singh, following their consent to 23 breaches of minimum employment standards across four pieces of legislation, as recorded in an earlier liability determination dated 18 December 2025. The breaches involved four employees, two of whom were migrant workers on Accredited Employer Work Visas (AEWVs).
The Authority ordered Bolina to pay $52,800 in penalties and Mr Singh to pay $27,840 personally. Both respondents also carried a joint and several costs liability of $7,257.95, bringing the total financial exposure to $87,897.95.
At the time of the breaches, Mr Singh held no directorship in Bolina but retained a 50-percent shareholding. Mr Singh accepted he was a "person involved in breaches of employment standards" under s 142W of the Employment Relations Act 2000, making him personally liable alongside the company. While Mr Singh's maximum penalty exposure was set at exactly half of Bolina's across all breach categories, his final penalty of $27,840 came out marginally above half of Bolina's $52,800 total. This reflected the Authority's targeted adjustment on the premium breaches, where a lesser amelioration discount was applied to Mr Singh than to Bolina, on account of his higher personal culpability for that conduct.
The most serious conduct centred on Bolina and Mr Singh demanding a $10,000 employment premium from migrant workers Paramjit Kaur and Guriqbal Singh Bains, both AEWV holders whose visa status depended on their continued employment with Bolina. Bolina and Mr Singh obtained the full $10,000 from Mr Bains. The Authority described the premium demand as "egregious," noting the workers' unfamiliarity with New Zealand employment law and their dependence on the company.
Total unpaid entitlements across the four affected employees reached $28,139.24. Ms Kaur was owed $8,833.05, covering minimum wage and holiday pay arrears. Mr Bains was owed $19,306.19, covering minimum wage shortfalls, the $10,000 employment premium, and holiday pay arrears. The wage arrears owed to Ms Kaur and Mr Bains were subsequently paid to the Labour Inspectorate for distribution in January 2026, though the Authority noted both complainants had been deprived of money that should have been paid in the latter half of 2023, with arrears not reaching them until January 2026. As of the date of the determination, Bolina had also still not confirmed reinstatement of annual holiday entitlements owed to the other two affected employees, Arti Rayait and Shanese Sharland, as directed in the December 2025 consent determination.
The Authority found the breaches deliberate. Mr Singh directed hours of work and maintained manual records before Bolina introduced an automated payroll system, meaning he knew the migrant workers worked significantly more hours than the records reflected. The Authority noted the inaccurate wage and time records hindered both the Labour Inspector's ability to calculate arrears and the workers' access to their minimum entitlements.
The Authority globalised 23 breaches into 14 penalty categories, applying starting points between 20 percent and 50 percent of the available maximum per breach type. A final 20 percent proportionality reduction produced the ultimate penalty figures for both respondents.
The Authority declined the Labour Inspector's request to direct part of the penalties to Ms Kaur and Mr Bains, holding that penalties serve the broader public interest in enforcing minimum employment standards rather than providing individual compensation.
