Background
Diederik van Heerden worked for Longevity Construction from 2018 to March 2024. He was initially engaged as a contractor before becoming an employee. He was made redundant alongside Robert Williams after 12 months of daily staff briefings warning that the market downturn was making their positions untenable.
What follows isn't disputed by the ERA — much of it was stated as fact during the hearing. It simply didn't affect the outcome.
Tool Theft: $5,500 — Stated by the ERA, Not Alleged
After his redundancy, van Heerden retained $5,500 worth of company tools. This wasn't an allegation — the ERA member stated during the hearing that he had taken them, and ordered him to return them to Longevity Construction.
He has never returned them. No enforcement action was taken.
Secret Rate Increase: $65 → $85 Per Hour
When van Heerden was first engaged as a contractor, his agreed hourly rate was $65. Over time, he began invoicing for work at $85 per hour — an increase of over 30% — without any discussion or approval.
How did this go unnoticed for months? He invoiced for a single lump sum combining labour and materials, rather than breaking each down separately. This made it impossible to see the labour rate buried inside the total.
When Longevity finally discovered the rate increase, it had been going on for months. The overpayment was substantial.
Materials Markup: 30% Margin on "Cheaper" Supplies
Van Heerden offered to supply materials for renovation jobs, telling the company he could source them cheaper than what Longevity was paying. The company agreed.
What he didn't disclose: he was adding a 30% margin on top of those materials before invoicing. The materials that were supposed to save the company money ended up costing more than Longevity's standard supply chain — because the markup more than consumed any discount.
Again, this was hidden by the lump-sum invoicing approach. With no breakdown between labour and materials, the margin was invisible. It took six months to discover.
The Wife: Elsje van Heerden
In 2023 — before the redundancies, when renovation work was declining — van Heerden approached me with a suggestion: employ his wife, Elsje. He told me she was getting him weekend work and could bring renovation jobs to Longevity Construction.
We employed Elsje on that basis. Twelve months later, she had not secured a single job for the company.
We tried retraining her in Shorcom operations — the transparent project management system. She repeatedly made errors and could not understand how the system worked. When it became visible the role was not a fit, we offered her a settlement. I did not blame Elsje for lacking the skills — I blamed Didi for misrepresenting what she could do.
Part of the settlement agreement explicitly required that she not make derogatory statements about Longevity Construction. She took the settlement money. She went to the media about the company anyway. The settlement terms were ignored, with no consequence.
The Motorcycle: $3,000 Owed for Over a Year
Van Heerden purchased a motorcycle from me personally. After one year, he still owed $3,000 on it. When he was made redundant, the outstanding amount was deducted from his final pay.
The ERA criticised me for this deduction — a personal debt, not a company matter — while simultaneously acknowledging he had been ordered to return the $5,500 in tools he stole from the company. He kept the tools. He kept the motorcycle. He collected his award.
700 Job Applications — or 700 Pieces of Paper?
During the ERA hearing, van Heerden claimed he had applied for over 700 jobs in the 12 months following his redundancy. He held up a large bundle of paper he said were printouts from Seek.co.nz.
This bundle was never scrutinised. The ERA accepted it at face value. From what we could see — flipping through pages as they were waved around — many of the applications were for roles he was not qualified for: project management positions requiring MS Project experience, senior roles well above his skill level.
He was awarded approximately $180,000 for 12 months of lost income.
Working While "Unemployed"
During the period van Heerden claimed he could not find work — the same 12 months the ERA compensated him for — staff at Mitre 10 told us he was regularly coming in to buy materials on his company account. He was doing renovation work.
Not employed on someone else's payroll, perhaps. But earning income from his own business — with company tools, purchased on a company account, while collecting $180,000 for being unable to find work.
This was raised. It did not change the outcome.
What Employers Should Know
- Require itemised invoicing. Every contractor invoice must break down labour hours x rate, and materials with cost. No lump sums. A single-line invoice hides rate changes, margin padding, and double-billing.
- Tool registers matter. Maintain a signed tool register with photographs and serial numbers. When the ERA tells an employee to return stolen tools and nothing happens, at least your insurance claim has a paper trail.
- Scrutinise the job applications. If an ex-employee claims they applied for 700 jobs, demand to see them. The ERA won't check unless you force the issue. Applications for jobs the person isn't qualified for are not evidence of a genuine job search.
- Check if they're working. An ex-employee claiming lost income while running their own renovation business — buying materials, doing jobs — is not unemployed. Supplier accounts, trade accounts, and industry contacts can reveal self-employment that a CV won't show.