An Auckland construction company used a Singapore agency to charge a migrant thousands of dollars in fees to get a job, and sacked him after a week.

The Employment Relations Authority heard 6 Meter Homes was accredited to recruit dozens of migrants for its two firms, but was likely to have known and profited from the agency charging an $11,000 job premium.

The Rosedale-based business was ordered to pay more than $46,000 in compensation, fines and lost wages.

One of its directors, Wenbin Hua, had to pay $6000 of that for seeking a premium from migrant worker, Shunxu Zhou.

Zhou was charged a premium to get a carpenter’s job with 6 Meter but he was sacked a week after starting.

He was recruited from Singapore, along with at least four others, and paid the equivalent of about NZD$11,700 over 2022 and 2023 to get a job and visa.

“The amount of money Mr Zhou was required to pay was significant from his perspective,” said authority member Nicola Craig in her decision.

“He spent all his savings, as well as borrowing money, to pay the fee, hoping to create a better future for his family.”

The Singapore agency and Zhou’s dismissal

The Rosedale company’s website said it specialised in building complex mansions with high-end design, as well as large-scale townhouse projects.

Its founder Wenbin (Ray) Hua was described as a licensed building practitioner with 11 years experience.

The ERA heard 6 Meter had accreditation from 2022, with an estimated 55 Immigration New Zealand-issued job ‘tokens’, which defines the number of migrants they could employ at one time.

One of the immigration advisers the firm used, Zhen (Gigi) Tong, told the ERA she assisted two 6 Meter companies to apply for accredited employer status in 2022.

“Ms Tong’s recall is that between the two companies, they ultimately obtained about 55 job tokens although she had only used 10 or so in applications or workers she assisted,” said Craig.

“Other [job tokens] may have been used by different advisors.”

Zhou’s witness statement described him feeling ‘uneasy with the rapid and rudimentary process’ as he signed to pay the fee, but Hua’s assurance made him reluctantly agree to accept it.

After a delay in his visa, he arrived in 2023.

Although Zhou’s experience was in installing outdoor advertising boards, he was recruited by Hua as a carpenter, and was sacked a week after starting house framing work on a South Auckland work site.

“Mr Zhou was significantly affected by his dismissal – sadness with no job or income, having to borrow money from family and friends to survive. He felt helpless and guilty, unable to earn in a foreign country to provide for his family back home.

“Despair led to physical and mental exhaustion.”

A director of the Singaporean agency Hua used – known as Mr B and X Ltd in last week’s ERA decision – said the $11,000 fee was for a ‘business consulting agreement’.

Mr B acted as a middleman in Zhou’s recruitment and visa processing, with Hua saying the agent collected visa documents for Zhou.

New Zealand authorities do not have jurisdiction to impose penalties on overseas agents for job-selling here.

The ERA recorded the migrant’s account of Mr B’s involvement.

“He tells Mr Zhou what the fee is. While at Mr B’s office, Mr Hua forwards the employment agreement to Mr B who prints it out. Mr Zhou signs the agreement Mr Hua provides.

“The agreement is in English and Mr Zhou cannot read it.”

Zhou was dismissed with little explanation. His messages did not get answered and he struggled for work.

“Mr Zhou messages Mr Hua on 17 August, asking when he can start with the painting work. He calls Mr Hua that day and the next but his calls are not answered. Mr Zhou messages again about starting the painting work and says if no arrangement is made ‘refund my travel costs for me to go back to Singapore to work’.

“He tells Mr Hua he has no money to get by on.

“On 24 August Mr Zhou messages again saying he has no living expenses, having worked on the jobsite for a week but receiving no wages. He asks how long it is going to take for him to be paid or can he borrow some living expenses to get by.”

Zhou got a cash job to tide himself over.

“It appears a similar arrangement was made with a trial for a plasterer who sub-contracted to 6 Meter companies,” said Craig.

“One of these sub-contractors seems to have been an AEWV (accredited employer work visa) holder himself. 6 Meter should not have made arrangements for Mr Zhou to work for other people or organisations without ensuring any immigration implications were taken care of.”

Director’s wife and company denials

Hua denied any relationship or profit-share with the Singaporean agent although he referred to Mr B as his friend.

He and 6 Meter denied they received any money for Zhou’s employment from the agent or the New Zealand based adviser Tong.

There is no suggestion Tong did anything wrong.

Hua viewed the fee Zhou paid for the the business consultancy agreement as being reasonable, although elsewhere in his evidence he said it was ‘none of his business’, said Craig.

Charging a worker a premium for a job was unlawful under the Wages Protection Act.

The ERA determination concluded: “The business consultancy agreement disguised the real nature of the arrangements.

“It is more likely than not that Mr Hua and/or 6 Meter was seeking and received money from B and/or X Ltd.”

It said Hua’s wife – who was named Ms U in the decision – was also involved.

“There is no evidence of Ms U having a formal role with 6 Meter but I accept the submission for Mr Zhou that there was no credible explanation for the degree and content of her involvement with Mr Zhou other than being there on behalf of her husband.”

The Authority ruled the breaches were serious, and said it was important to punish companies to deter others from following suit.

It ordered the business to pay Zhou $13,000 for lost wages and $17,000 compensation, plus a $8000 penalty for the job premium that the migrant paid.

In addition, 6 Meter ($2000) and Hua personally ($6000), will have to pay ERA penalties for charging a job premium.

Companies carry on regardless

Employment law advocate May Moncur said it shows not only the company’s wrongdoing but also the policy failure and loopholes that allow it to happen – including ‘toothless’ employment laws, weak oversight, and lack of resources for labour inspectors to do their job.

An ERA decision was crucial, but not the end of the battle, as getting payments in cases involving other firms had proved difficult or impossible, she said.

“This is my first and only AEWV case in the past two years where an illegal premium claim against the employer has been upheld by the authority,” she said.

The lack of Labour Inspectorate investigations allowed employers to carry on regardless, she said – either with no case brought against them, or – if they are found out – by becoming insolvent and starting a different company.

“This time, OK, this employer was caught and is fined, but how about the other workers? We can’t enforce the decisions, and employers breach settlements. The potential loss and the damage to the integrity of employment law and immigration law, it’s just beyond words.

“I had a determination issued last year against the employer. The total remedies together would be close to $160,000 – so far, not even a single cent has been paid by the employer. And I have a number of other cases.”

That number has prompted her to set up a special office drawer for successful cases where payment is due or not coming – and she said it was getting full.

The government needed to consult with practitioners to close the loopholes in policy, and increase inspector numbers, said Moncur.

Meanwhile, the ERA decision has given Zhou the chance of – potentially – receiving compensation and recouping lost wages.

“We won this case so far – on paper it’s pretty, altogether $46,000, the employee would get something around $38,000 in total, plus some costs. Very beautiful on paper, but can we enforce this? We don’t know.

“The companies, they do know what they’re doing and they do know the law, and they do know the potential consequences. The incentive of continuing such an operation definitely overrides any risk. And the current legislation, either immigration law or employment law, or both – has failed. Failed to deliver any deterrence for such a behaviour.

“We say we have been working hard to stop migrant exploitation, but if there’s no real action there, then it’s just lip service.”

MBIE’s Labour Inspectorate Brendon Strieker confirmed it was not investigating 6 Meter Construction.

“It should also be noted that the Labour Inspectorate does not investigate personal grievances,” he said.

On the INZ website, 6 Meter Homes was still listed as an accredited employer, eligible to continue recruiting migrants until September 2026.

Source: RNZ