A company that refused to pay an accountant who did such a bad job he cost the business $30,000 has been ordered by a tribunal to fork out for the man’s unpaid wages.

The assistant accountant was hired through a recruiting company in 2022 in a temporary position spanning some six months before his contract was extended - and then terminated.

The company, which was not named in the recently published Disputes Tribunal ruling, didn’t pay the man’s last five invoices totalling $14,000.

The recruitment agency took the company to the tribunal hoping to have those wages paid to its client, but the company counter-claimed for $30,000, which is the amount it says its former employee cost it in mistakes.

The company said the recruitment agency misrepresented the man’s abilities, while the agency says any vetting should have been done by the employer before it hired the man.

Tribunal referee Elizabeth Paton-Simpson agreed with the recruiter and noted that the company opted to extend the man’s contract in November 2022 even after issues with his work had emerged.

The company submitted that the man didn’t do the work that was set for him and was instead doing his own personal study in his last two weeks of employment.

They also said he left many of their accounts unpaid while duplicating payments on other accounts, made incorrect journal entries, entered into duplicate foreign exchange contracts that turned out to be unfavourable and failed to complete bank reconciliations.

It was estimated that his errors or omissions cost the company in excess of $30,000.

Paton-Simpson said that even though he failed to accomplish the tasks given to him he was still attending work and the company was contractually-bound to pay him unless they could prove he was engaged in non-work activities.

“The contract does not specify the work to be achieved, only the hours to be worked,” she said in her ruling.

She pointed to a clause in the employment contract between the company and the recruitment agency which stated; “You are responsible for supervising, directing and controlling the manner, time and place in which the Contingent Worker carries out work for you during the Assignment…”

Paton-Simpson also pointed to another clause in the same agreement which stated that the agency wouldn’t be liable for any damages or losses arising from the performance of any worker hired by the company through it.

Ultimately Paton-Simpson ordered the company pay the man his missing salary and dismissed their counter-claim of $30,000.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.