When an employee files a grievance, the law provides a path for justice. But what happens when the same person files nearly identical grievances against every employer - always with the same advocate, always for the same amount of money, and always with the same threats attached?
An employment advocate speaking during a meeting at an office table.
When an employee files a grievance, the law provides a path for justice. But what happens when the same person files nearly identical grievances against every employer - always with the same advocate, always for the same amount of money, and always with the same threats attached?
That is the troubling question now circling around employment advocate Allan Halse and employee Ravi Bhojwani.
A Consistent Pattern
Employment advocate Allan Halse and employee Ravi Bhojwani have appeared together in grievance filings against at least four New Zealand businesses: Mastercare Property Services, Baker Property Services, At Your Request Cleaning, and Candoo Franchising.
In every case, the sequence is identical. Ravi is hired. He performs his duties without incident. Then, without warning, he alleges bullying and disadvantage. Allan appears immediately as his advocate. A grievance is filed with the ERA. The employer receives a demand for $30,000. And then come the threats: settle now, or face the media with whatever story they decide to tell.
Side-by-side comparison of the grievance letters reveals what the employers already suspected - multiple sections are nearly identical. Same claims. Same dollar figure. Different letterhead.
The Employers' Accounts
Across the four businesses, the outcomes varied but the pattern remained the same. In one case, the claim never made it before the ERA. In another, it was formally dismissed, with costs awarded against Ravi that remain unpaid. In a third, an employer was pressured into settlement after Allan threatened to go public. And in the case still before the ERA, Candoo is facing ongoing harassment, including emails sent to its entire franchise network containing false information about the director and encouraging franchisees to also come on as Allan's clients for a fee.
The same sequence, the same dollar figure, and the same relentless pressure tactics.
What the ERA Says
A representative from the ERA, who spoke to us on background, acknowledged the difficulty of dealing with cases involving Mr Halse.
She said she "knows what Allan is like" and confirmed he is well known for making continuous media threats as part of his approach. Because he is not a lawyer, "there is not much the Authority can do" to regulate his conduct - even when those threats cause reputational damage or spread claims that later collapse.
A Question of Incentives
Halse is believed to operate on a "no win, no fee" model - meaning he only gets paid if his client secures a settlement or award. That creates a strong incentive to push for payouts. Employers say the repeated media threats added pressure to settle quickly, regardless of whether the claims had merit.
What his clients are not always told is that if they lose at the ERA, they can be ordered to pay costs. That has already happened in several cases including Ravi's, yet the employer says those costs remain unpaid, despite being cleared of wrongdoing.
Ethical Questions
Critics argue that this pattern looks less like genuine advocacy and more like a business model: a template grievance, repeated across different workplaces, each time seeking $30,000.
Mr Halse has been criticised before. Past articles and comments from others in the employment law community have raised concerns about his conduct, with some calling his tactics "ethically unacceptable." The ERA itself has noted Ravi's multiple grievances in past cases and raised questions about his representative's conduct.
Small Businesses Caught in the Middle
For small businesses, facing a grievance of this kind can be devastating. Even when claims do not hold up, the process itself brings heavy costs: legal fees, weeks of distraction, stress, and the fear of reputational damage if their name is dragged into the media.
Everyone agrees that genuine grievances and workplace mistreatment must always be taken seriously. But the pattern emerging here - the same advocate, the same employee, the same $30,000 demand, and the same threats - looks less like justice and more like a calculated strategy. There is a right way and a wrong way to resolve workplace issues, and few would argue that threatening or bullying an employer while those issues are being addressed is the right way forward.
The $30,000 Question
Is Ravi simply the unluckiest worker in New Zealand, mistreated at every job he has had? Or is this a calculated strategy designed to squeeze settlements from small businesses?
And is Allan Halse a fearless advocate for vulnerable workers, or an operator using the language of justice to run a pressure-based business model of his own?
Those are the $30,000 questions. And with multiple cases dismissed, costs unpaid, and media threats confirmed by the ERA itself, critics say the pattern is too consistent to ignore.
When candidates can duck journalists and public debate in a by-election, voters are left with slogans instead of scrutiny. It is time to treat media access as a democratic safeguard, not a campaign inconvenience.
Farming and industry are often told that moving away from fossil fuels will be expensive and disruptive. The better framing is that early movers will build the skills, supply chains and reputation that the next generation of customers and markets will demand.
Provincial New Zealand is tired of being noticed only when votes are at stake. Lasting policy requires politicians to listen to small towns, rural communities and regional cities between elections as well as during them.