A call to action: a renewed case for regulation of employment advocates

The employment jurisdiction is somewhat unique in that the institutions have historically allowed a special place for lay-advocate representatives. They carry out the same work as lawyers including representing parties in disputes, negotiations and mediations, and at the Employment Relations Authority (Authority), Employment Court and, with special leave, beyond. However, there is no regulatory framework to address issues of concern regarding an advocate’s conduct, competence or complaints. Lawyers are bound by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 and are subject to complaints and disciplinary mechanisms. When an advocate fails to conduct themselves professionally or competently, it is the client or applicant who is at risk of a poor outcome or even costs and penalties if there is non-compliance with orders of the Authority or Court. Yet employment advocates are not answerable to any professional body.

Read more

Back to the future: Court of Appeal affirms earlier Uber decision, but with different reasoning

A landmark judgment in employment law has reaffirmed that Uber drivers are employees, and not contractors, under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (Act). However, further changes to the test for employment status may not be far away.

Read more

A miscarriage of justice

This story has been described as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history. It involves the British Post Office pursuing innocent workers (postmasters) for apparent financial irregularities and shortfalls which were caused by faults in its IT accounting software system that made it look like money was missing from branch accounts. Postmasters are self-employed and run branch post offices under contract to the Post Office and are liable for any loss or damage to any Post Office cash and stock and any shortfalls in the money payable to the Post Office must be made good (in full) by the postmaster.

Read more

Trial period pitfalls

In December 2023, the (then) new government had passed legislation that reintroduced the use of trial periods for new employees being available for employers of all sizes. With the increase in employers’ ability to use trial periods, it is another timely reminder that the rules regarding trial periods are enforced very strictly.

Read more

Verbal warnings: valid or void?

A common misconception that employers often hold is that they can rely on verbal warnings to justify formal disciplinary or performance management outcomes, instead of going through a formal process. The reality is that it’s not that simple. While there is a place for verbal warnings, employers should be cautious when seeking to rely on them to justify formal employment outcomes.

Read more

Restructuring dos and don’ts

This year is proving to be an especially difficult period for employers and employees throughout New Zealand. Many businesses are reporting a disappointing year with declines in revenue and operating profits. Some of this performance is due to the macro environment, such as inflation, employment, spending, and monetary and fiscal policy. This is shaping the job market and has created stresses and strains for both employees and employers as they navigate the issues of higher costs, cost-cutting, scaling-back and job cuts. Added to that mix is the upheaval of the “tech wave” with the rise of AI and the prediction that it will be a contributing factor to more layoffs.

Read more