Office manager told to pay back company or lose work visa

A woman has been awarded $23,120 after the company she worked for threatened to revoke her work visa if she did not give up her pay.

Raj Meghana bahen Pravinsinh worked as an office manager for Blenheim company Savvy Contracting 2008 Limited, which carried out vineyard contracting work in the Marlborough area. She worked there for about two years from May 2010.

She applied for a work permit through the company, while also applying for residency.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) was told that company manager Amrik Singh started demanding that she repay him most of her wages, saying if she did not he would revoke her work permit, and that it would also have an impact on her residency application.

Ms Pravinsinh complied with these demands and handed over the majority of her wages each week.

"Ms Pravinsinh knew that Mr Singh's request for payment of her wages was unlawful but she felt, I accept because of matters relating to residency, that she believed she had to keep paying him," said ERA member Helen Doyle in the determination.

By December Ms Pravinsinh was not being paid any wages at all but continued to work.

She tried to get what she was owed, sending several emails to Mr Singh and others in the company, but these were ignored.

"Still I am waiting for my salary so whats you up to, I can say I am tired to say you guys often. If you want to do anything that I have to do something, I feel it I am a beggar in front of you (sic)," one email said.

Eventually Mr Singh took away her office keys and told her the company was moving, but he didn't say where to.

The ERA considered Ms Pravinsinh to be a credible witness after analysing her bank transactions, which corroborated her claim that she had been paying Mr Singh money.

"I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, having heard the evidence, that Ms Pravinsinh did pay money from her wages to Mr Singh in the sums I have set out because of his threats," Ms Doyle said.

This amount was determined to be $14,920.

It was also clear that she was not paid at all for a 10-week period, when she should have received $8200.

The ERA considered whether Mr Singh was personally liable for repaying Ms Pravinsinh or whether the company should pay.

It determined that, because Mr Singh was a person who had considerable control and authority in the company, and because company director Sukhjinder Cheemaand was aware that money was being demanded, the company was liable to pay the $23,120.

The ERA also determined that Ms Pravinsinh was entitled to interest on that amount.

Neither Ms Pravinsinh nor Savvy Contracting 2008 Limited could be reached for comment.