Seasonal workers take employer to court
A GROUP of Solomon Islanders in New Zealand for seasonal work are taking an employer to court over hours worked and deductions to their wages for things such as wet weather gear and travel costs.
The case has the potential to set a precedent not only for all workers employed under the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme, but for others on minimum wages.
In light of how high the legal stakes are, the NZ Employment Court has ruled it will hear the case directly — skipping an investigation that would normally first be carried out by the Employment Relations Authority.
The RSE scheme, overseen by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, allows up to 14,400 Pacific Island workers to work in New Zealand to fill labour shortages in certain industries.
The workers get a special visa and return home at the end of the season.
Accredited employers can apply to Immigration New Zealand to recruit workers and must meet terms and conditions set out in an Immigration New Zealand operation manual.
Those are reflected in standard individual employment agreements for each worker.
Solomon Islanders Lyn Soapi, Danny Lau and Mary Lau are employed seasonally under the scheme by horticulturalists and viticulturalists.
Their counsel Tim Oldfield alleges breaches by the group’s employer Pick Hawkes Bay Incorporated of the Wages Protection Act 1983, the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Employment Act 2000.
Applying to have the court take the case directly, Oldfield outlined four legal issues that needed to be determined, none of which had been previously considered by the court. He said the workers’ agreements were meant to comply with New Zealand law but in his view wage deductions, some of which were approved by Immigration New Zealand and reflected in the agreements, did not comply.
As an example, Oldfield pointed to Danny Lau’s October 2018 agreement that required him to wear suitable clothes in the workplace, with deductions to be made from his wages for wet weather gear and footwear supplied to him.Oldfield claimed that work gear qualified as personal protective equipment under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
If the court agreed, then it was a cost the employer was legally required to meet — a cost that could not be passed on to the employee.
Under the existing employment agreement, the applicants consented to deductions such as half an international return airfare, travel insurance, domestic travel, accommodation, and other costs such as reimbursements for missing kitchenware and wage advancements.
x