The husband of a stood-down Green MP is tied to a history of Employment Relations Authority (ERA) battles involving companies he runs.
Video / NZHerald
Hoff-Nielsen denied all the exploitation allegations at the time and told the Herald,“this is not a news story, there is no news”.
Today, he again addressed past instances where he was found by the ERA to have never paid an employee and fired another “on the spot”, resulting in his companies having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in compensation and unpaid wages to the two men.
One of the successful complainants told the ERA Hoff-Nielsen was “difficult to work with” and maintained a “dysfunctional employment relationship”.
Stood-down Green MP Darleen Tana Hoff-Nielsen. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Tana's husband, Christian Hoff-Nielsen. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Hoff-Nielsen told the Herald these past cases “should not be related” to his ongoing dispute with Santiago Latour Palma.
He continued to dispute the ERA’s past decisions against his businesses and said he believed those cases had made him “easy prey” for other potentially disgruntled employees.
He also believed Palma’s complaint and all subsequent media coverage were due to his wife’s position as a member of Parliament.
Hoff-Nielsen fires man ‘on the spot’, is accused of being ‘difficult to work for’
The first ERA determination was on September 15 last year, when an employee raised a personal grievance saying he was “fired on the spot” from E Cycles NZ Ltd without warning on June 4.
The employee, Nick Scott, was called into a meeting with Hoff-Nielsen about issues at work.
The ERA’s decision read: “[Scott] had formed a strong view within his first few weeks of work that the workplace was not well-organised and he found Mr Hoff-Nielsen difficult to work for,” ERA decision said.
“[Scott] saw [it] as a dysfunctional employment relationship.”
Hoff-Nielsen arrives at his e-bike shop in Newmarket, where he was questioned about an ongoing migrant exploitation accusation. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Scott said the meeting about work issues was heated and recalled Hoff-Nielsen telling him to “just finish the day and then you’re done”.
Hoff-Nielsen contested that he had fired Scott, instead telling the ERA he thought Scott had resigned by “abandoning the workplace” after the discussion.
The ERA, however, accepted Scott had been fired. The ERA said while Hoff-Nielsen was entitled to raise concerns with Scott about the performance of his duties, he acted unfairly.
“[The] defect in the process Mr Hoff-Nielsen followed was more than minor and resulted in Mr Scott being treated unfairly,” the decision read.
Hoff-Nielsen says these past ERA cases 'should not be related' to his ongoing dispute with Santiago Latour Palma. Photo / Jason Oxenham
The ERA said a reasonable employer could not have “called it quits” without giving its employee time to address any concerns and having the employer genuinely consider them.
For the unjustified dismissal, the ERA ordered E Cycles NZ Ltd to pay Scott almost $23,000 to settle his personal grievance. This involved $7962.50 for lost wages and $15,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
Scott told the Herald: “I just want to move on and put all this behind me and move forward. All I wanted was to work, earn money and do something I enjoyed, and all of that went out the window.”
Scott’s lawyer Alex Kersjes said he had attempted to come to an agreement with Hoff-Nielsen to pay the ordered costs.
Hoff-Nielsen claims Scott’s case a ‘miscarriage of justice’
E Cycles NZ then tried reopening the case with the ERA, claiming its earlier determination in favour of Scott had been a “miscarriage of justice”.
The company and Hoff-Nielsen said it had difficulties preparing for the authority’s investigation and providing evidence.
The company complained about Hoff-Nielsen not being involved in a case management conference as part of the ERA’s investigation into Scott’s claims.
However, Hoff-Nielsen earlier said he did not want to participate, the ERA said.
The ERA said Hoff-Nielsen also used his contact with a Covid-19 infected person as an excuse to get out of one investigation meeting and that “Mr Hoff-Nielsen was taken at his word”.
A postponed meeting was pushed back further as Hoff-Nielsen said he would be in another ERA investigation meeting for his company in Blenheim.
The ERA, however, said this was untrue: “There were not two Authority meetings scheduled on the same day. One was notified for Blenheim on January 26, one in Auckland was notified for January 27.”
The ERA declined E Cycles NZ’s application to reopen the case.
Hoff-Nielsen continues to dispute the ERA’s past decisions and says he believes they had made him 'easy prey' for other potentially disgruntled employees. Photo / Jason Oxenham
“[E Cycles NZ] had not established a real or substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice that would have warranted granting its application for reopening,” its decision said.
“Rather, as submitted for Mr Scott, [E Cycles NZ] application appeared to be a ‘back door’ attempt by an unsuccessful party to seek to re-argue its case when it had already had a reasonable opportunity to do so in the Authority investigation.
“Weighed in this case, the balance favoured Mr Scott having certainty of outcome and receiving the fruit of his success from that process.”
Second employment complaint deals with Hoff-Nielsen’s company leaving employee unpaid
Around the same time Hoff-Nielsen’s E Cycles Ltd was embroiled in the issue with Scott, another of his companies, Green Wheels Blenheim Ltd, was in front of the ERA for not paying employee Chuck Simpson.
Simpson said he hadn’t been paid for work with Green Wheels Blenheim Ltd.
Hoff-Nielsen said this was because the company had not employed him, but had put him on a “period of due diligence” where Simpson would learn about the business ahead of potentially buying it.
The ERA concluded Simpson was working for an employer “in the accepted sense” and the owed wages he had claimed were due.
The ERA ordered Hoff-Nielsen to pay Simpson more than $6000, less income taxes.
