Boss accused of hiring Black Power to threaten staff has fines slashed

Chirag Ahuja was ordered to pay $20,000 by the ERA after two ex-staff members said Black Power members were hired to intimidate witnesses in an employment dispute. Photo/File

A judge has slashed the fine for an Auckland clothing company boss who arranged for two former workers to be threatened during a wage fight.

In January, Hillsborough's Chirag Ahuja was ordered to pay $20,000 by the Employment Relations Authority after two ex-staff members said Black Power members were hired to intimidate witnesses in a dispute over unpaid wages and holiday pay.

Chirag's sister and mother, Neelam Ahuja and Rhythm Ahuja, who were fellow directors of clothing companies Khoobsurat Collections and Naari Collection, were also fined $20,000 each.

But the trio appealed the case to the Employment Court and Judge Mark Perkins last month scrapped Neelam's and Rhythm's fines and cut Chirag's to $12,000.

In his judgment, Perkins said he was convinced that the former employees were telling the truth about the threats made to them.

One of the clothing business' workers had earlier told the Employment Relations Authority that she was visited at home by a gang member in October 2016.

Her husband, who answer the door, said he found a hooded man with numerous tattoos on his face, including Black Power across his cheeks and nose.

The visitor allegedly told the woman that she should not be making trouble for old employer and said Black Power had been paid money to threaten her.

Judge Perkins, in his decision last month, said it was an "easy step" to conclude that three directors must have employed people to carry out the threats given they were the only people who would benefit from the two staff members not giving evidence at the employment hearing.

But the judge was not convinced that Neelam and Rhythm were involved in hiring the people who made the threats to the witnesses, whom he referred to as "employee A" and "employee B".

"The evidence of employee A and her husband proves that only males were involved in directing the person who came to their home and made the threats.

"Even if the person who contacted employee B is different from the person who visited the home of employee A and her husband, there must be a reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence of employee A that the same male persons directed that the threats be made to employee B."

While there was a dispute over whether those involved were gang members, Perkins said he was persuaded that workers were threatened and that Chirag Ahuja was the orchestrator.

"It is more likely than not that he was the one who employed the person (whether or not that person was indeed a gang member) who visited employee A and her husband and the person who telephoned employee B at her place of work."

He said the evidence showed Chirag Ahuja contacted employee A by text message when the proceedings against him were issued and he had access to photographs of her and her family through social media.

"When the person making the threats spoke of employee A's employers, he was clearly speaking of males.

"One of the deciding features of that conversation is the fact that the person making the threats provided a description of those male employers which identified to employee A the people he was speaking about were Chirag Ahuja and his father."

While he was persuaded of Chirag's involvement, he believed applying the maximum penalty of $10,000 per employee was excessive.

Perkins said the maximum penalty should be reserved for the most serious cases involving heinous and repeated breaches.

"While undermining the course of justice is a very serious matter, there is no evidence of any previous actions of this kind on Chirag Ahuja's part."

He cut the fine from $10,000 per employee threatened to $6000 bringing the total to $12,000. Of that, $6000 would be paid to the Crown while each of the former employees would receive $3000 each.

He also ruled that the costs in the case should be paid solely by Chirag Ahuja.