<\/p>\n
\nWell Sushi has been ordered to pay back a worker more than $50,000 in wage arrears.
\nPhoto: lev dolgachov\n<\/p>\n
The employment watchdog has ordered a Lower Hutt sushi restaurant pay $30,000 in penalties after it didn’t pay a migrant worker the minimum wage and failed to pay for some of their leave.<\/p>\n
The Employment Relations Authority found that Well Sushi failed to meet a range of employment standards which negatively affected a vulnerable migrant worker.<\/p>\n
These were failing to keep accurate time records, not paying the minimum wage, not providing the full annual holiday entitlement, not paying time-and-a-half for holiday work and not paying for sick leave.<\/p>\n
The business was ordered to pay $53,940 in wage arrears which has since been given to the worker who was now a permanent resident of New Zealand.<\/p>\n
On top of that Well Sushi now had to fork out $30,000 for the breaches.<\/p>\n
The labour inspector responsible for the case said the restaurant had fallen short of good behaviour expected of employers.<\/p>\n
“Well Sushi’s conduct has undermined the obligations of mutual trust and confidence that should exist in any employment relationship.”<\/p>\n
The inspector noted the affected employee was a migrant worker on a work visa, sponsored by the business.<\/p>\n
They said it made the worker “inherently vulnerable” particularly due to little personal experience of New Zealand employment standards and little ready access to support and information about those standards or enforcement of them.<\/p>\n
The restaurant argued that penalties should not be imposed and that the breaches were partly “inadvertent”.<\/p>\n
Labour inspectorate investigations manager for the central\/southern region, Taahera Begum said while it was pleasing Well Sushi had paid the worker the arrears owed, it was important employers realised breaching employment standards could have serious consequences.<\/p>\n
“The fact that the wage arrears in this case amounted to more than $50,000 is a sign of how much this employee was disadvantaged by his employer, someone he no doubt trusted.”<\/p>\n