Seasonal labour contracts for Pacific Islanders brought in for Hawke’s Bay horticulture and viticulture amounted to indentured labour, union officials claimed. Growers said pay deductions were appropriate recoveries for upfront payments made on behalf of pickers. The Employment Court ordered $25,000 compensation to three Solomon Island pickers for unlawful deductions; employers using the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme must comply with wages protection and minimum wage legislation, the Court ruled.
The Court also questioned employers’ practice of holding seasonal workers’ passports. Growers said passports were held solely for safekeeping. The Employment Court questioned why the same facility was not provided for other valuables owned by seasonal workers.
For nearly two decades, Pick Hawke’s Bay has recruited seasonal workers from Vanuatu, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Nauru. It operates as a not-for-profit business, sourcing temporary employees for growers across Hawke’s Bay during harvest season.
Temporary visas are issued through a scheme managed by Immigration New Zealand.
Employers must pay half of workers’ airfares, provide suitable accommodation, and pay New Zealand’s minimum wage.
The Employment Court ruled Pick Hawke’s Bay accounting methods breached employment law rules.
Evidence was given of Pick Hawke’s Bay paying seasonal workers a weekly cash ‘allowance’ of one hundred dollars with the balance otherwise due for each week’s work set off against a reducing balance of employment costs: accommodation; work equipment and clothing; health/travel insurance; and the employee’s half share of airfares.
Full weekly payments were not made until the ‘reducing balance’ reached zero.
The Employment Court ruled Pick Hawke’s Bay was wrongly charging seasonal workers for work gear, wet weather gear and personal protective equipment. Health and safety legislation mandates this as an employer’s cost.
Wage deductions for accommodation provided by Pick Hawke’s Bay to some 140 employees were challenged as being excessive; strict rules govern circumstances where accommodation deductions reduce cash-in-hand to below the minimum wage.
The Minimum Wage Act allows deductions for employer-provided board and lodging, with deductions calculated at either an agreed figure or ‘cash value’ of the accommodation provided. Failing that, any deduction for lodging can be no more than five per cent of wages.
Pick Hawke’s Bay makes available Portacom buildings equipped with bunk beds separated by curtains. Kitchens, showers and toilets are in separate buildings.
The court was told Pick Hawke’s Bay had been charging a weekly accommodation fee of between $115-$120 per week.
Union officials claimed this accommodation is so rudimentary as to have an actual cash value of zero, or close to it.
There was evidence that a consortium of Hawke’s Bay growers fund this accommodation, with annual costs charged in full to seasonal workers across the seven month period they are employed.
In a test case, the Employment Court ruled there had been no ‘agreement’ as to accommodation costs, nor proof of the actual ‘cash value’ for this accommodation. Pick Hawke’s Bay could deduct no more than five per cent of wages for the accommodation provided, the Court ruled.
The Court called for an investigation into the lack of transparency where growers are directly funding seasonal accommodation through Pick Hawke’s Bay, which then on-charges seasonal workers the full year’s costs when this accommodation sits unused for a substantial portion of each year.
Pick Hawke’s Bay was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation in total to the three seasonal workers named in the test case.
In turn, Pick Hawke’s Bay argued that any deductions held to be unlawful were still debts owed by these employees and should be recoverable as unpaid loans.
The Employment Court said recovery as loans was possible, but first required proof by Pick Hawke’s Bay as to the type of benefit provided, the value of the benefit, and its rights as an employer to demand payment.
Soapi v. Pick Hawke’s Bay Inc. – Employment Court (15.09.25)
25.207