-
Aug 5, 2024 | 
reiq.com | Abby Shieh
Some businesses tend to see casual employment as a loophole of sorts, enabling them to effectively ‘hire and fire’ at will without taking on risk – but businesses are cautioned to tread carefully, in light of the upcoming amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(the Act)which are due to come into force from 26 August 2024.
-
Apr 26, 2024 | 
hcamag.com | Gwen Drewitt |Abby Shieh
Definition can vary depending on employment agreement, case law
A lot of employers and employees wind up in the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) - and sometimes in the news - due to a restructure going awry. The employer will defend their restructure, saying it was genuine and backed by sound business rationale; the employee will argue the restructure was a sham or that they weren’t consulted adequately before being made redundant.
-
Sep 29, 2023 | 
hcamag.com | Fiona McMillan |Abby Shieh
Recent case shows employers need to follow policies closely, consider alternatives to dismissal
Drugs and alcohol pose a major health and safety risk to employers, particularly those with workers operating in safety-sensitive positions (for example, where heavy machinery is at play).
-
Sep 16, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Fiona McMillan |Abby Shieh
Drugs and alcohol pose a major health and safety risk to employers, particularly those with workers operating in safety sensitive positions (for example, where heavy machinery is at play).
-
Sep 8, 2023 | 
hcamag.com | Gwen Drewitt |Abby Shieh
Definition can vary depending on employment agreement, case law
A lot of employers and employees wind up in the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) - and sometimes in the news - due to a restructure going awry. The employer will defend their restructure, saying it was genuine and backed by sound business rationale; the employee will argue the restructure was a sham or that they weren’t consulted adequately before being made redundant.
-
Aug 22, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Gwen Drewitt |Abby Shieh
A lot of employers and employees wind up in the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) (and sometimes in the news) due to a restructure going awry. The employer will defend their restructure, saying it was genuine and backed by sound business rationale; the employee will argue the restructure was a sham, or that they weren’t consulted adequately before being made redundant. But taking a step back, what exactly is considered a redundancy?
-
Aug 11, 2023 | 
hcamag.com | Maria Green |Abby Shieh
Employer required to follow tikanga it voluntarily incorporated into procedures
The recent Employment Court decision in GF v. Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service provides helpful guidance regarding the application of tikanga in employment relationships.
As a result of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021, an unvaccinated employee was terminated from their position with New Zealand Customs Service (Customs).
-
Jul 17, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Maria Green |Abby Shieh
The recent Employment Court decision in GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service provides helpful guidance regarding the application of tikanga in employment relationships. As a result of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021, an unvaccinated employee was terminated from their position with New Zealand Customs Service (Customs).
-
Jun 13, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Joseph Harrop |Abby Shieh
The Holidays Act 2003 (Act) is notorious for its complexity, directing employers on what to pay, how to pay and when to pay. Why? Its purpose is to provide employees with a base set of entitlements, allowing for adequate paid time off for rest and relaxation – and while a worthy cause, it gets tricky when attempting to navigate the myriad of formulas, definitions and exceptions contained in the Act.
-
May 15, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Maria Green |Abby Shieh
New Zealand Steel Limited went to bat in the Employment Court in an attempt to overturn an Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination that it had unjustifiably dismissed Mr Haddad in a redundancy process. The Employment Court dismissed the challenge. Mr Haddad maintained his reinstatement to the role of Project Manager in Engineering Services, his compensation for lost earnings was increased to a period of 14 months and his compensation was increased to $25,000. So, what went wrong?
