Employers cannot escape ban on charging workers for New Zealand jobs by collecting money overseas
New Zealand's Employment Court has ruled that employers cannot sidestep the ban on charging workers for jobs by collecting the money overseas.
In a judgment delivered this month, a full bench found that section 12A of the Wages Protection Act 1983 – which bars employers and anyone acting for them from seeking or receiving a premium for employment – applies even when all or part of the transaction takes place outside the country.
The court concluded that "the place in which the premium transaction occurred is irrelevant for the purposes of s 12A".
The ruling answers a preliminary question of law in two cases removed from the Employment Relations Authority, Labour Inspector v Top Produce Ltd and Bhatia v Khanna.
The authority had split on the issue, with some determinations following Mehta v Elliott, a 2003 Employment Court decision that held a premium sought or received overseas was not unlawful.
The full court, led by Chief Judge Christina Inglis, rejected that approach. It said a narrow reading would let employers "avoid the protective rights conferred by s 12A simply by transacting overseas for employment in New Zealand."
The court found that the connecting factor under s 12A is "the New Zealand employment relationship," not where the money changes hands. It added that Mehta "may best be seen as a creature of its time," as offshore pay-to-work schemes and debt bondage were...
The Department of Health and Human Services capped off a week of intensive anti-fraud activity with the launching of a six-month healthcare False Claims Act self-disclosure pilot program in partne...