Business loses employment fight
A Canterbury hospitality business owner claims his “human rights were breached” after losing a three-and-half-year legal battle over his refusal to provide wage and employment records to a labour inspector.
Darren Angus owns Caisteal An Ime Ltd (CAIL) with his wife Lyndal, which trades as Akaroa Village Inn. In September 2022, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered him to pay $7500 in penalties for refusing to provide the records. Angus tried to appeal the determination – first to the Employment Court and then to the Court of Appeal – but had both appeals dismissed.
The legal battle began in 2020 when the labour inspectorate received complaints on public holidays payments. Investigators found CAIL had breached minimum employment standards, and the business agreed to rectify the breaches and provide evidence.
However, the inspector was not satisfied it was accurate or complete, and requested CAIL either conduct another audit or supply its records. Angus refused, saying the business had rectified the breaches.
His refusal led to the inspector making a formal request for copies of wages and time records, holiday and leave records and employment agreements.
Angus claimed the labour inspector’s request had “no legal basis” and was “unreasonable, disproportionate, replicative of work, an abuse of power and harassment”.
He told The Press they had been “fully compliant”. “We supplied them with all the data and then they just came back and slammed us and wanted more.”
Angus believed he had a right to know who had made allegations against the business and the nature of the allegations. “How can you defend yourself if you don’t formally know who is making the allegations?” The inspector took the case to the ERA. Labour inspectorate head Simon Humphries said had the it “supplied the labour inspector with the requested documents when initially asked, this drawn-out legal process would never have been necessary”. “Businesses and their owners are required to supply employment records when requested to do so by a labour inspector ... The labour inspector tried her best to help the business rectify the breaches in compliance standards.”
ERA member Philip Cheyne found the inspector’s request was reasonable, did not violate the company’s rights, and was neither an abuse of power nor harassment. He ordered CAIL to pay a penalty of $7500 within 28 days, and comply with the initial request to provide the records.
Unhappy with that decision, Angus turned to the Employment Court, which found no basis for CAIL to refuse to supply the records and that the penalty ordered by the ERA was appropriate.
Still not satisfied, Angus applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the Employment Court decision.
The Court of Appeal said it could not discern any question of law that is seriously arguable or any other reason why the court should consider an appeal.
Angus insisted any allegations against the business were “totally unfounded”. “We have all our records, we had zero complaints from any of our staff on these matters. Obviously we don’t know the basis of these allegations that the inspector decided to come and visit us. e don’t underpay our staff, all our staff get proper dues … We’ve got nothing to hide.”
He said the $7500 penalty would mean “at least one job will go”. “If [an order for legal costs] is made against us, another couple will also be affected,” he added.
Angus said he would now be filing an application with the Human Rights Commissioner against the labour inspector and MBIE.
This was the second time Angus had challenged an ERA determination in the Employment Court and failed. In 2023, the court ruled that an ERA determination in October 2021 that CAIL had to pay a former manager in the business’ ice cream store $7473 for unpaid wages and compensation was justified.