Just need some clarification on an issue... Or an outsiders point of view really. I believe that the information that I am after is publically available via INZ and DoL, and I already know what the answer is, but I could really do with a second opinion here (not advise, just an opinion in an informal setting).

I'm in a bit of an employment dispute at the moment, with an employer who underpaid my wages, didn't pay me at all at times, didn't allow me to have breaks or take annual leave for a number of years etc. I was a migrant on a work visa at the time. As far as I'm concerned, the employment went from being casual to being full time within the first few months (on the roster 6-7 days a week, all year round), and the employer is trying to state that the employment was always a genuine casual one and that he had no obligations to me. Furthermore, he has got an ex-employee to file a statement on their behalf that claims that they were and still are are a genuine casual employee (same position however with a different employer) and have always been such. The problem is that the the witness is on an essential skills visa, the same as I was, initially tied to the ex-employer and now to their current employer. My contract stated that I was to work an average of 30 hours per week (casual, on-call contract), whereas in reality I had to make myself available 80-100 hours per week. The letters from my employer to INZ also stated that I was supposed to work an average of 30 hours per week. The INZ website states that essential skills visas are for full time employees only, working at least 30 hours per week. I worked over and above those hours, but the witness (lets call them X) was in a position where they were able to take themselves off the roster, unlike myself, which they regularely did. Is that not a breach of visa conditions to be a casual employee on a visa which should be for full time work? I am a resident and able to do X's job (I am qualified, unlike X, and experienced in the field) and yet X is granted work visas for the job. Furthermore, is it not immigration fraud and migrant exploitation for an employer to hire migrants on essential skills visas and then claim that they have no obligations to the migrants? My understanding was that the visa was for a minimum of 30 hours of work per week, and as this was reiterated in both the contracts and the cover letter from the employer, and yet the employer refused to put myself or anyone else on part or full time contracts. Yet I and all the other staff was handed a letter stating that as we were "casuals", they did not have to provide us with any work or pay and had no obligations to us. Also although we were supposedly "casuals", we were still on the roster 6-7 days per week, all year round and were expected to be available at all times. I was never once asked if I wanted to work, but was expected to turn up for work on a daily basis.

This is doing my head in... Can someone please clarify to me if an employer can, by law, hire a migrant on a "employee is expected to work an average of 30 hours per week" so called casual on-call contract and obtain an essential skills visa for that employee, and then claim not to have any obligations to that migrant?? Furthermore, can a migrant use an essential skills visa to remain in the country, doing a job that a kiwi can do, whilst treating the employment as a casual one??

Unfortunately I cannot reveal the industry, region or any other information which has the potential to identify anyone involved in the matter, however the information has been passed on to the appropriate departments and organisations for further investigation.