Four migrant workers spent years running a Christchurch motel while missing out on wages, holidays and other legal entitlements.
Four migrant workers spent years running a Christchurch motel while missing out on wages, holidays and other legal entitlements. Their employer has now been sentenced, but the case raises a bigger question about workers who depend on their bosses for both employment and accommodation.
By Webfit News | Crime & Employment | 28 October 2026
CHRISTCHURCH: Imagine working from 7.30 in the morning until 9.30 at night, seven days a week.
No ordinary weekend. No proper separation between work and home. And despite putting in as many as 98 hours a week, being paid for only 40.
For four migrant workers employed at a Christchurch motel, this was the reality uncovered by an Immigration New Zealand investigation.
On Wednesday, 28 October, motel owner Jian Li was sentenced to seven and a half months' home detention after pleading guilty to seven migrant exploitation charges under the Immigration Act 2009.
Li owned and operated Fei Huang Teng Da Ltd, trading as 315 Motel Riccarton.
The case involved four migrant workers employed as motel managers between February 2017 and December 2021.
The company had already been sentenced in May and ordered to pay more than $115,000 in reparations.
But beyond the court outcome, the case exposes a troubling imbalance: workers who were expected to keep a business operating while being denied basic employment entitlements.
According to Immigration New Zealand, the four workers were required to live at the motel and effectively manage its daily operations.
That included staffing reception from 7.30am until 9.30pm every day.
The investigation found they worked between 84 and 98 hours a week, yet were generally paid for only 40 hours.
At the upper end, that meant a worker could put in 58 hours beyond the hours reflected in their pay.
That is more than an additional full-time working week.
The workers also missed out on minimum wage and Holidays Act entitlements, including annual holidays and time-and-a-half payments for work on public holidays.
These were not occasional payroll mistakes involving a few hours.
The offending continued across employment arrangements spanning several years.
Immigration New Zealand Investigations National Manager Jason Perry described the situation as unacceptable.
"These workers weren't just working the occasional long day. They were essentially running the motel from morning until night, seven days a week, while being paid for only a fraction of the hours they worked."
One of the most concerning aspects of the case is that the workers were required to live on-site.
For someone employed in an unfamiliar country, accommodation connected to employment can initially seem convenient.
But it can also blur the boundaries between working hours and personal time.
When a worker lives where they work, the expectation to remain available can become difficult to escape.
The arrangement can be particularly challenging for migrants whose ability to remain in New Zealand may depend on their employment circumstances.
That does not mean every employer-provided accommodation arrangement is exploitative.
But in this case, the combination of excessive hours, on-site living requirements and substantial underpayment demonstrates how vulnerable workers can become.
The court proceedings established offences under immigration legislation. They also highlight why employers must keep accurate records and comply with minimum employment standards, regardless of a worker's nationality or visa status.
Li pleaded guilty to seven migrant exploitation charges.
At sentencing in the Christchurch District Court, his lawyer sought community detention.
The court declined that submission, given the seriousness of the offending, and imposed seven and a half months' home detention.
The company, Fei Huang Teng Da Ltd, had earlier pleaded guilty to seven migrant exploitation charges.
It was sentenced on 29 May 2026, while Li was overseas, and ordered to pay $115,077.26 in reparations.
According to Immigration New Zealand, approximately that amount has been paid to the four affected workers through the court proceedings.
Three of the workers remain in New Zealand on valid work visas.
The fourth has left the country.
The release does not identify the workers or disclose their nationalities.
The reparations are an important outcome.
They represent money recovered for workers who were denied employment entitlements.
But compensation cannot give someone back years of missed rest, holidays or personal time.
It also cannot fully measure the uncertainty that may accompany a migrant worker's dependence on an employer.
Perry acknowledged that distinction.
"It's positive that these workers have received compensation for some of what they were denied, but that doesn't change the fact they spent years working excessive hours without receiving their full pay and entitlements."
The case also raises a practical question about accountability.
How can serious underpayment continue for years before it is uncovered and prosecuted?
The Immigration New Zealand release does not explain what first triggered the investigation or when authorities became aware of the offending.
Those details would help establish whether the exploitation was identified through a worker complaint, regulatory monitoring or another source.
They are important questions because identifying exploitation early can prevent further harm.
There is another consequence of employment exploitation that receives less attention.
Businesses that comply with employment laws must account for wages, leave, staffing and other operating costs.
An employer who avoids those obligations can gain an unfair financial advantage over competitors.
That is why this case matters beyond the four workers directly affected.
A hospitality business that underpays staff is not simply reducing its own costs. It can also undermine fair competition within the industry.
Perry said employers who exploit workers damage both their employees and businesses that follow the rules.
"Employers shouldn't be able to gain a financial advantage by cutting corners and exploiting their staff."
For New Zealand's hospitality sector, which employs people from a wide range of backgrounds, fair employment practices are essential to maintaining trust.
Migrant exploitation is not always easy to identify from outside a workplace.
Some workers may be unfamiliar with New Zealand employment law.
Others may worry about losing their income, accommodation or employment opportunities if they complain.
Language barriers and limited local support networks can make seeking help more difficult.
Where a worker's immigration status is connected to their employment, those concerns may become more serious.
These are broader risks associated with migrant employment, not findings about why the four individuals in this case remained in their jobs.
Immigration New Zealand has reiterated that migrant workers have the same minimum employment rights as other workers.
Those protections apply regardless of nationality or visa type.
Working in New Zealand does not mean giving up basic employment rights.
Employers must comply with minimum wage requirements, keep accurate wage and time records, and provide statutory holiday and leave entitlements.
A worker should not assume that a salary automatically allows an employer to demand unlimited hours without regard to minimum employment standards.
Similarly, living at a workplace does not remove an employer's legal obligations.
Anyone concerned about underpayment, excessive working hours or exploitation can seek information through Employment New Zealand or report suspected migrant exploitation to Immigration New Zealand.
Workers who are uncertain about their immigration circumstances should seek appropriate advice rather than assume that reporting mistreatment will automatically cost them their right to remain in the country.
The Christchurch motel case has reached a significant legal conclusion.
The owner has been sentenced. The company has been ordered to pay reparations, and the affected workers have received compensation.
But the most important lesson may lie in the years before the prosecution.
Four people were working exceptionally long hours in a business where they also lived.
Their work helped keep the motel operating, yet their pay did not reflect the hours they were required to work.
The issue is not simply how severely an employer is punished after exploitation is discovered. It is how workers can be protected before years of their lives are spent under those conditions.
That is the question this case should leave with employers, regulators and anyone concerned about fair treatment in New Zealand workplaces.
Source: Immigration New Zealand, media release dated 28 October 2026.
