Liquor store opponent barred from hearing
A liquor licensing committee won’t hear evidence that a bottle store should lose its licence after claims of serious exploitation of workers. Steve Kilgallon reports.
A liquor licensing committee has told a community activist it will not hear his allegations that two liquor store-owning brothers exploited their migrant worker staff.
Stuff reported in June how three workers alleged they were paid as little as $8 an hour and were collectively owed $400,000 in missing wages and entitlements by Hamilton-based brothers Taranjeet and Jaspreet Singh Janda.
Former Salvation Army worker Colin Bridle planned to use the Stuff story and call one of the former bottle store workers as his witness when he opposed the renewal of the liquor licence for the Janda brothers’ Thirsty Liquor store in Tokoroa.
But South Waikato District
Council licensing commissioner Murray Clearwater has thrown out Bridle’s objection and Bridle won’t be permitted to speak at a January renewal hearing.
However, a hearingwill still happen after the Medical Officer of Health, whose objections legally have to be heard, objected to the renewal – on exactly the same grounds as Bridle..
The health officer’s objection is a single-page letter, while Bridle had amassed a dossier of evidence. Bridle refused a request to hand it over in advance, saying it should be tested properly.
Bridle has often clashed with the town’s authorities and business communities and calls the decision ‘‘justice denied’’.
‘‘My passion is, how I can prevent more alcohol being consumed in our community because we are drowning in it and its effects ... but every time I make amove I get slapped down again.’’
Bridle used the story to object to the liquor licence on two grounds: that the Jandas were unsuitable employers because of the exploitation accusations, and that the alleged failure to pay employees properly gave them a competitive advantage to sell alcohol more cheaply.
Clearwater wrote to Bridle saying he had to satisfy the committee he would be affected by the bottle store, and warned Bridle, a serial objector, that ‘‘a scatter gun approach in a licence application is unhelpful and damages his credibility’’.
Usually, anyone living within a 1 to 2-kilometre radius of a store can object (Bridle lives 1.5km away) but Clearwater said Bridle must prove how he was personally affected by the store and show substantive evidence of worker abuse. He said natural justice dictated evidence be provided upfront for response.
Bridle disagreed. ‘‘It would appear frommy point of view what they are trying to do is get a look at the evidence to see how they can best defuse it before it gets to court.’’
Bridle’s lawyer, Grant Hewison, who is also chairman of alcohol pressure group Communities AgainstAlcohol Harm, said it was usual for it to be accepted that those living close by had automatic standing to speak. Clearwater had ‘‘turned it on its head’’ by asking Bridle to prove the impact, which was ‘‘unusual and contrary to the expected practice’’.
Hewison believed it was a ‘‘significant breach of natural justice’’ that Bridle hadn’t been told of Health’s objection, and that he was denied speaking rights
... how I can prevent more alcohol being consumed in our community because we are drowning in it and its effects... ’ COLIN BRIDLE
when their objections were identical.
Stuff originally reported how the three former employees of the brothers – who own a pub, several bottle stores and a mini-mart – alleged they were routinely underpaid and told to return some of their wages in cash.
One worker, Manjinder Singh Sonu, had managed the brothers’ Four Square franchise in Tokoroa. He complained to Foodstuffs, who ‘‘decided to end our business relationship’’ after an investigation.
Among evidence furnished to Stuff were video and audio recordings, bank statements, witness statements and invoices to support claims of underpayment, hoursworked beyond those paid for, and workers breaching their visa conditions. In one, Jaspreet Janda appeared to admit paying just $10 an hour to an employee.
In June, Taranjeet Singh Janda said the claims were untrue, and his lawyer Sanjay Sharma said he would fight them. Manjinder Singh has since reached a confidential settlement.
Another worker, Satwinder ‘‘Sam’’ Singh, is in mediation with the brothers after pursuing an Employment Relations Authority claim for his lost wages.
A third worker, Adarsh Monate, complained to the Labour Inspector, who conducted an investigation into the Jandas’ company Two Brothers Wholesale. The investigation closed in June without finding sufficient evidence of exploitation, but concluded the company failed to keep compliant records or employment agreements and breached holiday requirements. It was served an improvement notice.
The Labour Inspectorate plans to object to liquor licences where it finds proof of worker exploitation but said in this case, it hadn’t found sufficient evidence so had not raised an objection.
South Waikato District Council requestedwritten questions, but didn’t respond directly to them. Instead, it said: ‘‘The District Licensing Committee Chair has advised that no discussion will take place prior to the hearing. Thiswill ensure that a fair hearing takes place in due course.
‘‘The DLC Secretary can advise that it has been determined that Mr Bridle does not have a greater interest than the public at large and he has no standing in this application for the reasons cited in the decision.
‘‘The DLC Secretary can advise that the Medical Officer of Health has objected and that the Chair has determined a hearing is appropriate. The decisionwill become public following the hearing.’’