Photo: 123RF
Reaction to a new law that criminalises wage theft has been mixed, with unions and employers clearly divided on the impact of the legislation.
Union delegates argue the new law will deter employers from exploiting workers.
However, business leaders claim the legislation is unnecessary and may in fact be harmful.
The Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, a Labour Party member's bill, passed after its third reading in Parliament on Wednesday night.
The bill makes it a crime to unlawfully withhold wages, salaries and other monetary entitlements in an employment relationship.
Under the new legislation, individual employers face a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment, a fine of $5000 or both.
In other cases, employers face a maximum fine of $30,000.
Shanna Olsen-Reeder Photo: Supplied
Shanna Olsen-Reeder, national secretary for Unite Union, said wage theft was a common problem, and the new law was an important tool for workers to ensure they were paid fairly for their work.
"We know from experience that many bad employers were not at all deterred by the law as it was but making it a criminal offence will hopefully make them think twice about ripping off their workers," Olsen-Reeder said.
"Currently the option of taking an employment case isn't particularly attractive as it can take years and cost a lot of money which - especially if you've been a victim of wage theft - you don't necessarily have."
She said the change should de-normalise wage theft, which in the past has been seen as "business as usual".
The new law should empower workers and make business a more even playing field for employers who were playing by the rules, she said.
Olsen-Reeder said people tied to their employers by a work visa might still be hesitant to report any wrongdoing due to their extra level of vulnerability, but the law was an "important option to give workers".
She would like to see migrant workers' visas being de-coupled from employees so they could be free to leave a bad employer more easily and employers under the accredited employer work visa scheme losing their accreditation if found guilty.
Dennis Maga Photo: Supplied
Dennis Maga, general secretary at First Union, said his union had been waiting a long time for the legislation to be enacted.
He said previously people could take a case to the Employment Relations Authority, but unlawful employers felt they could still get away from their liabilities.
"They can always liquidate their business and ... form or join another business entity," Maga said.
"What I'd like to see is employers will be reminded that if ever they continue to exploit workers or migrant workers in this country, that there is a criminal liability against them."
Jaspreet Kandhari Photo: Supplied
Jaspreet Kandhari, general secretary of the New Zealand Indian Business Association, expressed concern about the implications of the law change for employers.
"Wage theft is not acceptable," he said. "That's a position everyone agrees on."
However, Kandhari feared the legislation could be misused or abused, with employees potentially making false allegations about wages, which he said had happened before.
"This legislation is serious as it carries significant implications for employers," he said.
He said employers were often responsible to prove their own innocence at Employment Relations Authority, and he was concerned it might be the same case scenario here.
"The burden is all on the employer to prove their innocence," he said. "Even if it is not proved in the court, it would add unnecessary burden to the employer and that would actually be very intimidating for the employer."
"The law could strain employer-employee relationships, given that the balance has tilted too far in favour of employees," Kandhari said.
Rajesh Goyal, president of the Auckland Indian Retailers Association, believed the change was "unnecessary and harmful".
"Existing employment laws already provide effective solutions, and involving the police in minor disputes - sometimes as little as $100 - is an unnecessary burden on law enforcement and businesses," Goyal said.
"This law damages employer-employee relationships and discourages job creation," he said. "Wage issues should be handled through employment dispute channels, not the criminal justice system.
"We urge the government to reconsider this law and focus on fair, practical solutions that support both workers and businesses."
Jack Wu, a licensed immigration advisor and an employment relations advocate, said unpaid wages were an issue that often arose in migrant communities.
He said the amendment should work well in a simple case where employers intentionally withhold their employee's pay but might be tricky to apply to more complicated employment issues.
"This amendment ... is very simple," Wu said. "It's just one page."
"We need to be careful when it gets applied into reality because you know in every case at authority or courts, there are always some complications."
A police spokesperson said the role of the police was to enforce the law, and did not comment on whether that would impact police resourcing.
"If police receive reports of offending in relation to this legislation, then our staff will conduct enquiries and work with partner agencies to determine what action, if any, is required," police said in a statement.
