In the middle of 2023, two migrant workers arrived in New Zealand carrying the weight of a $60,000 promise each — money paid in India for the chance to begin again. What they found instead was a system designed to turn their vulnerability into profit, their visa dependency into leverage, and their wages into a reimbursement for their own hiring. A Thames supermarket owner has now been fined and his store stripped of its brand, a small reckoning in the longer human story of those who cross borders in hope and find exploitation waiting.
Four Square owner fined $44k for charging migrants $120k for jobs
Two migrant workers were exploited and financially harmed, losing $120,000 combined to secure employment under false pretenses, though funds were eventually repaid.
Their visas bound them to a single employer, leaving them exposed
Mark
Why would an employer demand upfront payment from workers they're supposedly hiring? What's the logic?
Mimi
It's a form of debt bondage dressed up as a hiring fee. The employer gets the money, uses it to pay the workers' wages, and keeps the financial benefit. The workers are trapped—their visas depend on staying employed at that specific business, so they can't easily leave or complain.
Mark
But the workers had family ties to the owner. Doesn't that change the dynamic?
Mimi
It might seem like it should, but it actually made them more vulnerable. Family connections can create pressure to accept unfair terms, and they may have trusted the owner in ways that left them exposed. The visa sponsorship was the real trap, though. Without it, they had no legal status in the country.
Mark
The workers left after a short time. What happened?
Mimi
The owner claimed they'd lied about their English ability during hiring. Whether that's true or not, the point is they were gone quickly—but they'd already paid the $60,000. The financial damage was done before the employment relationship even really began.
Mark
How does a supermarket chain like Four Square end up with a store doing this?
Mimi
That's the question Foodstuffs is grappling with now. They say they have oversight mechanisms and a Code of Conduct, but this store operated under their brand while the owner was extracting money from vulnerable workers. The debannering is damage control—cutting the store loose to protect the brand.
Mark
What does this tell us about migrant worker protections in New Zealand?
Mimi
That they exist on paper, but enforcement depends on workers knowing their rights and being willing to report. These workers were new, isolated, visa-dependent, and had paid money they couldn't afford to lose. It took them months to complain, and only then because the arrangement was so egregious.
The Pulse
- Two workers paid $120,000 combined in India for jobs that were quietly engineered to pay the employer back, not the employees forward.
- Their visas bound them to a single employer, leaving them with almost no power to resist or report — until they did.
- The arrangement collapsed within months as the owner accused them of misrepresenting their English skills, and the workers filed complaints that triggered a Labour Inspectorate investigation.
- The Employment Relations Authority found the exploitation clear-cut, ordering $44,000 in penalties and $7,000 in costs, with each worker receiving $1,000 of the fine.
- Foodstuffs moved to contain the reputational damage swiftly, stripping the store of its Four Square banner and reaffirming its Code of Conduct — though the harm to the workers had already been done.
In the middle of 2023, two migrant workers arrived in New Zealand carrying the weight of a $60,000 promise each — money paid in India for the chance to begin again. What they found instead was a system designed to turn their vulnerability into profit, their visa dependency into leverage, and their wages into a reimbursement for their own hiring. A Thames supermarket owner has now been fined and his store stripped of its brand, a small reckoning in the longer human story of those who cross borders in hope and find exploitation waiting.
Two migrant workers arrived in New Zealand in mid-2023 having each paid $60,000 in India — across seven instalments — for the promise of jobs at a Four Square supermarket in Thames. The store was operated by Jaswinder Singh through his company A Dharni Enterprises Ltd, and both workers had family connections to him. They entered on Accredited Employer Work Visas, their legal right to remain in the country tied entirely to Singh's business.
The payments were not incidental. The company used them to offset wages it would otherwise have paid directly — a financial arrangement that benefited the employer at the workers' expense. Their visa dependency and unfamiliarity with New Zealand employment law left them with little recourse. The arrangement ended quickly: Singh concluded the workers had misrepresented their English proficiency, they left after a brief stay, and by September 2023 they had filed complaints with authorities.
The Employment Relations Authority found the conduct straightforward. ERA member Helen van Druten ordered A Dharni Enterprises Ltd to pay $32,000 and Singh personally to pay $12,000, with over $7,000 in Labour Inspectorate costs also awarded. Each worker received $1,000 from the company's penalty. The $120,000 in premiums had been repaid before the hearing concluded, but the breach was treated as serious regardless.
The Labour Inspectorate's Migrant Exploitation Manager described demanding payment for employment as a serious violation of employment standards, reaffirming that migrant workers carry the same rights as any other employee in New Zealand. Foodstuffs North Island responded by debannering the store — it no longer operates under the Four Square name — and issued a statement calling the conduct well short of expected standards. The co-operative said it had completed its own investigation and that the case was a source of real disappointment to an owner-operator community it described as largely doing the right thing.
Two migrant workers arrived in New Zealand in the middle of 2023 with the promise of employment and a fresh start. What they had paid for that promise, back in India, was $60,000 each—money handed over in seven separate instalments to secure jobs at a Four Square supermarket in Thames. The arrangement, it turned out, was a calculated exploitation of their vulnerability.
Both workers had family connections to Jaswinder Singh, the sole owner of A Dharni Enterprises Ltd, which operated the store under the Four Square Martina banner. They entered the country on Accredited Employer Work Visas, their legal status tethered entirely to Singh's business. The money they paid was supposed to buy them employment. Instead, it became a mechanism to offset their wages. The company used the premiums to cover what it would otherwise have paid them directly—a financial sleight of hand that freed up company money while the workers bore the cost of their own hiring.
The arrangement unraveled quickly. The workers stayed only briefly before leaving, after Singh concluded they had misrepresented their English proficiency during recruitment. By September 2023, they filed complaints about the premiums with authorities. The Labour Inspectorate launched an investigation, and the case eventually landed before the Employment Relations Authority.
Helen van Druten, the ERA member who heard the case, found the conduct clear-cut. The company and Singh had extracted a financial advantage by using worker payments to cover wages. The workers themselves were particularly exposed: their visas bound them to a single employer, they were newcomers unfamiliar with New Zealand employment law, and they had limited recourse. Van Druten ordered A Dharni Enterprises Ltd to pay a $32,000 penalty and Singh to pay $12,000. The company and Singh were also ordered to cover more than $7,000 in Labour Inspectorate costs. Each worker received $1,000 of the company's penalty.
The money was repaid before the hearing concluded, but the breach remained stark. Natalie Gardiner, the Labour Inspectorate's Migrant Exploitation Manager, called the demand for payment in exchange for employment "a serious breach of employment standards." She emphasized that migrant workers hold the same rights and protections as any other employee in New Zealand, regardless of origin. Katriona Ikenasio, the Investigations Manager for the Northern region, noted that the Labour Inspectorate had long engaged with Foodstuffs NZ and the supermarket sector to promote compliance with employment standards.
Foodstuffs North Island, the co-operative that franchises the Four Square brand, moved swiftly to distance itself from the conduct. The Martina store has been debannered—it no longer operates as a Four Square and no longer carries the Foodstuffs brand. In a statement, a Foodstuffs spokesperson acknowledged the findings and expressed deep concern, calling the conduct "well short of the standards we expect." The co-operative emphasized that its members are bound by a Code of Conduct and clear commitments around employment practices, and that it provides extensive support and oversight. The spokesperson noted that the case was "a source of real disappointment" to the owner-operator community, most of whom "do the right thing." Foodstuffs said it had completed its own investigation and associated processes, and that it takes its obligations under New Zealand employment law extremely seriously.
Notable Quotes
There is absolutely no place in New Zealand for employers seeking payment in exchange for jobs. Migrant workers have the same employment rights and protections as all other workers, regardless of where they come from.— Natalie Gardiner, Labour Inspectorate Migrant Exploitation Manager
The conduct described falls well short of the standards we expect from businesses operating under our brands.— Foodstuffs North Island spokesperson
Want the full story?
Read the original at 1News ↗
Economy & Finance