Worker treated as casual is found permanent and owed pay for shifts not rostered

A support worker on fixed weekend hours was treated as casual, paid 8 percent holiday pay with her wages and, from mid-2024, made to compete for shifts by group text. Examining the real nature of the relationship, the Authority found she was a permanent part-time employee, and that her email choosing to “stay as casual” rested on the employer's mislabelling.

The Authority, citing [2025] NZEmpC 92, held she was owed pay for agreed hours she remained ready, willing and able to work, and ordered $32,739.84 gross in unpaid remuneration. It awarded $5,000 compensation for being treated as casual and $2,000 because her health and safety concern went unaddressed, with no s 124 reduction.

Applying the 12-month limits in s 135(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and s 76(5) of the Holidays Act 2003, the Authority treated each 8 percent payment as a separate breach, so only later payments and two other breaches were in time; it set one global penalty of $2,000, half to the worker.

What weight might a worker's own description of their status carry when it followed the employer's mislabelling?

What might treating each non-compliant holiday pay payment as a separate breach mean for penalty claims about long-running errors?

[2026] NZERA 634