Owner of Akaroa Village Inn failed in his challenge to a labour inspector’s powers to make unannounced inspections of wage records and a resulting $7500 fine imposed on his company Caisteal An Ime Ltd for failing to provide evidence of subsequent compliance with the Employment Relations Act, Holidays Act and Wages Protection Act.
The Court of Appeal heard that differences between Caisteal director Darren Angus and unnamed Akaroa Village staff had previously gone to mediation. Business, Innovation and Employment was later informed of ongoing staff complaints.
An unannounced labour inspection visit to Akaroa Village in August 2020 was met with a hostile reception from Mr Angus demanding to know who had laid a complaint.
The inspector interviewed five employees and required Mr Angus to forward nominated employment records. Delivery by email failed; attachments containing the requested records could not be opened.
A follow-up investigation identified multiple breaches of employment legislation. Subsequently, Mr Angus signed an enforceable undertaking on behalf of his company agreeing to take remedial action. This undertaking required written proof within the following three months of remedial steps taken.
Taking the view insufficient evidence had been provided, the labour inspector then required copies of wage records, time records, holiday and leave records plus employment agreements for all staff employed at Akaroa Village Inn for the three years Mr Angus had been running the business.
Mr Angus’ antagonism ratcheted up. An earlier Official Information Act request for the detailed complaints made to Business, Innovation and Employment resulted in him receiving these details, with names of the complaining employees redacted.
His refusal to provide the three years of information requested resulted in his company being fined $7500 by the Employment Relations Authority.
His subsequent appeal that the investigation process and subsequent fine were an ‘abuse of process’ in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Privacy Act, Official Information Act, Employment Relations Act and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was dismissed.
In general, Mr Angus claimed he was denied natural justice because he was never given names of employees whose complaints triggered the initial investigation.
The Court of Appeal said the issue on appeal was more narrowly about his company being fined for a failure to perform its agreed enforceable undertaking to take remedial action. Tangential issues about human rights and natural justice were not relevant to this prosecution.
Caisteal An Ime Ltd v. Labour Inspector – Court of Appeal (8.04.24)
24.084