Employment Archives | Edmonds Judd

Failure to return an employee’s personal information led to expensive results for an employer

January 21, 2025

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Online, Relationships, Social Media, Trusts

In a recent decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal an employer has been ordered to pay an ex-employee damages of $60,000 for interfering with the employee’s privacy.

The CEO invited the employee out of the office for a coffee meeting. During that meeting, the CEO gave the employee a letter detailing concerns about the employee’s performance. While they were out of the office, a director of the employer took the employee’s work laptop, personal USB flash drive, and personal cell phone from the employee’s desk without the employee’s consent or knowledge.

About a week later, the employee’s employment was terminated.

The employer later returned the personal cell phone, but did not return the personal information that had been stored on the work laptop or the employee’s USB drive.

Despite several requests over a long period of time, the employer failed to return the employee’s personal information and USB drive. Instead, the employer effectively blocked the employee’s attempt to obtain the return of his information, engaging in a range of tactics that delayed the return of the information.

The Tribunal found that the employer had collected the employee’s personal information when uplifting the laptop, cell phone and USB. It went onto find that the employer had breached information privacy principles 1, 2, and 4 of the Privacy Act 1993 because the employer had not collected the personal information for a lawful purpose or directly from the employee, and the personal information was collected in circumstances that were unfair and constituted an unreasonable intrusion on the employee’s personal affairs.

The Tribunal went on to determine that the breaches were an interference with the employee’s privacy as they had caused significant humiliation, injury to feelings and loss of dignity to the employee. In support of this finding, evidence had been provided by the employee that three weeks after the collection of his information, he was formally diagnosed with acute anxiety and depression, prescribed antidepressants, and sleeping medication. The employee had also started attending counselling.

The employer argued that the health conditions were caused by the loss of work, not by breaches of the collection principles. However, the collection does not need to be the sole cause of the consequences suffered.

Emails and other correspondence in evidence showed that the health conditions were attributable to distress about the collection of the information, including the inability to retrieve it, and not knowing who had seen it, and who was using and sharing the personal information

The Tribunal also found that the collection had caused the employee loss and detriment when he couldn’t complete his tax return on time, leading to a penalty. It also negatively affected his interests as it impacted his health, his career prospects and removed access for him to a personal USB and he did not have access to all his personal information that had been on his laptop.

The Tribunal found that an award of damages of $60,000 appropriately reflected the significant level of humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced by the employee because of the wrongful collection of his personal information.

A prompt return of the personal information wrongly collected would have significantly reduced the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced and therefore the amount of any award.

This claim was decided under the Privacy Act 1993 because the actions all occurred prior to that act being replaced by the Privacy Act 2020. However, it is still relevant to conduct under the 2020 Act – information privacy principles 1 – 4 and the test to show an interference with privacy has remained largely unchanged.

The decision is: BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64.

Joanne Dickson

Over the fence

January 16, 2025

Animals, Employment, Overseas, Property, Rural

Requirements when transporting livestock

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 outlines the standards and guidelines when transporting all live animals.

All animals must be provided with reasonably comfortable and secure accommodation when being transported. Animals must not be transported in a manner that causes unnecessary pain or distress, and regular welfare checks must be completed.

The legislation is supported by the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 that outline the regulations that must be followed at each stage of transporting an animal, including but not limited to:

Requirements for a transportation vehicle
Preparing animals for transport
Loading and unloading
The journey
Special requirements depending on the mode of transportation, and
Documentation required.

Animals must not be transported where they are unfit for travel unless a veterinary certificate is obtained. This includes where the animal has:

Ingrown horns
Bleeding horns or antlers
Lameness
Late-term pregnancy
Injured or diseased udders, or
Eye cancer.

In such cases, a veterinarian should be consulted. The veterinarian, at their discretion, may certify in writing that they consider the animal to be fit for transportation. The certification is only valid for seven days from the date of examination.

It is important to understand the requirements, as transportation of an unfit animal will constitute an infringement offence to the owner of the animal.

Recent NZ-UAE free trade agreement

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of New Zealand’s largest markets in the Middle East, with goods and services exports totaling NZ$1.1 billion for the year ended 30 June 2024. Negotiations for a trade agreement, to be known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), between New Zealand and the UAE concluded in Wellington on 26 September 2024.

The agreement will now undergo legal verification to prepare it for signature and public release. Once signed, both New Zealand and UAE will still need to take further steps before it becomes enforceable.

The key outcomes of the CEPA include:

A significant expansion of New Zealand’s free trade
New Zealand will have the best available access to the UAE market, with New Zealand goods exporters able to access the market duty-free. The CEPA will eliminate tariffs on 98.5% of exports to the UAE. This is planned to increase to 99% after three years. The initial access includes all New Zealand dairy, meat, horticulture and industrial products, and
The UAE is a key export destination and hub in the Gulf region. It offers significant opportunities to enhance cooperation across many areas, including agriculture and sustainable energy.

The UAE’s high-value market offers export growth for New Zealand companies, aligning with the government’s ambitious goal of doubling export value to the region within the next decade. Importantly, this also benefits our rural sectors, driving economic benefits across the country.

Employment contracts for seasonal workers

In September, important changes were announced to the Recognised Seasonal Employee Scheme (RSE) to support the growth of New Zealand horticulture and viticulture.

A notable change is the increase for the 2024–25 season RSE cap where 1,250 more workers can obtain an RSE Visa, thus increasing the cap to 20,750 workers.

Changes for employers

Employers are no longer required to offer their employees an average of 30 hours per week. Instead, they must offer a 30-hour minimum week calculated over a four-week period, for example: 120 hours within a four-week period. This is to account for fluctuation of working hours for weather-dependent roles and to minimise the number of hours having to be paid for unworked hours.

Previously all workers had to be paid at least 10% above the minimum wage. This is now only applicable where the worker is returning for their third or subsequent season, otherwise RSE workers only need to be paid at least minimum wage.

Employers may now impose a temporary increase on accommodation costs of 15% or $15.00, whichever is lesser of the two, for a 12-month period. If, however, the RSE employee was offered an accommodation cost agreement before 2 September 2024, then an increase cannot be imposed.

An employee’s ability to move between employers/regions has now increased from 14 to 21 days either side of the worker’s current move date where it is approved by the Agreement to Recruit (ATR). This is beneficial for employers with multiple worksites.

Changes for employees

RSE employees are now eligible for multi-entry visas, allowing them to return home for important events without needing to apply for another visa.

RSE employees may also be able to train, study or develop their skills while living in New Zealand, even if it does not directly relate to their role. They will, however, need to ensure they still meet their employment agreement requirements.

There is also no longer a requirement to be screened for HIV.

In response to these changes, RSE employer/employee actions may differ, depending on where you are in the ATR process.

If you are unsure of your obligations, don’t hesitate to contact us.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650

Hiring casual employees

November 21, 2024

Employment, Your Own Business

Employers have significant legal responsibilities

With summer shortly upon us, the up take in casual work is synonymous with school and university holidays. Despite the short-term nature of these roles, whether it’s seasonal fruit-picking, a retail Christmas-casual or a restaurant needing extra cover for busy nights, if you hire staff on a casual basis you still have significant legal responsibilities.

Hiring casual employees can provide beneficial working arrangements for both parties, with employers able to offer work on an ‘as needed’ basis and employees having the flexibility to decide when they wish to work and which shifts they would like to perform.

However, as an employer you must remember that during ‘agreed periods of work,’ casual employees are entitled to similar protections to those to which permanent employees are entitled. This is highlighted in a recent case before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).^[1]

Background

Mr Ford was employed by Haven Falls Funeral Home as a casual employee. It was agreed he would complete an initial eight-week training period.

Mr Ford completed about three weeks of this training in Northland before incidents occurred that led to him returning home to Whanganui. As a result, Haven Falls decided not to offer Mr Ford any future work and notified him via a phone call and a letter soon after. Haven Falls believed that because Mr Ford was a casual employee, he had no expectation of ongoing work and they could simply inform him he was no longer required.

Mr Ford filed an application in the ERA claiming he was a permanent employee and had been unjustifiably dismissed. The ERA upheld Mr Ford’s casual employee status and disagreed that he was a permanent employee. Nevertheless, his dismissal was still deemed to be unjustified.

The ERA held that Mr Ford was dismissed by Haven Falls during a period of employment. This meant that despite being employed on a casual basis, whilst Mr Ford was engaged for his eight-week training programme, he was entitled to the same entitlements a permanent employee is owed – including a fair process of dismissal. (Haven Falls informed Mr Ford of his dismissal via a phone call and a follow up letter.) Haven Falls did not carry out an investigation of the incidents, nor was there consultation with Mr Ford before the company decided to dismiss him. Haven Falls also failed to give Mr Ford a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Due to Haven Falls’ failure to follow the fair process owed to an employee engaged for a period of work, it was ordered to pay the following amounts to Mr Ford:

Lost wages of four weeks’ pay for the remainder of the agreed training period
Eight per cent holiday pay on top of the lost wages
Interest on the lost wages from 11 March 2020, until payment was made, and
$20,000 compensation^[2] for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

Employers’ obligations

Previous cases have also stated that there are responsibilities to casual employees during periods of engagement. This case confirms that obligations are owed to a casual (or fixed term) employee during agreed periods of work. The high price for failing to meet these obligations is also shown in this case with, amongst other remedies being awarded to Mr Ford, an additional $20,000 compensation on top of the lost wages award.

The key outcome in this case is that when hiring casual workers or if you are signing up to a casual role this summer, be sure to keep these obligations and rights in mind. If you have any hesitation at all or if you are involved in a similar situation, please contact us.

^[1] Ford v Haven Falls Funeral Home [2024] NZERA 224.

^[2] Section 123 (1)(c)(i) Health & Safety at Work Act 2015.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650

Business briefs

September 25, 2024

Commercial, Employment, News, Your Own Business

Companies Act reforms announced

The government has announced a suite of changes to the Companies Act 1993 aiming to improve fairness and the ease of doing business in New Zealand. The reform is expected to take place in two phases.

Phase One: The first phase focuses on the modernisation and simplification of the Act to better reflect a more evolved business and technological landscape.

Specific proposed changes include:

Providing a process for reducing the share capital of a company that does not require court approval
Amending the definition of ‘major transaction’ to exclude transactions relating to the capital structure of a company and clarify that a series of related transactions are captured by the definition
Adding additional types of transactions that can be approved by unanimous shareholder consent
Allowing companies to mingle unclaimed dividends with other funds after two years
Assigning unique identifiers to directors to prevent ‘phoenixing’ (where a new company is registered to take over an insolvent or unsuccessful one), and
Allowing directors and shareholders to have their residential addresses removed from the Companies Register, resolving safety and privacy concerns.

Further insolvency law amendments are also being proposed, including extended claw back periods, preference for long service leave and greater honouring of gift cards.

Phase Two: The second phase will involve a Law Commission review of directors’ duties and related issues such as director liability, sanctions and enforcement.

The bill introducing Phase One is expected to be introduced in early 2025 and Phase Two will closely follow.

Siouxsie Wiles employment decision

In July, the Employment Court ruled that the University of Auckland had breached its health and safety, and good faith obligations to Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles.^[1]

Dr Wiles was prominent in the media during the Covid pandemic, communicating complex Covid information in an understandable way to the public. Dr Wiles received harassment and abuse, both online and offline, from those who disagreed with her. She sought help from the university, but was told that it was not part of her academic duties and that she should minimise further public statements until a security audit had been completed.

Although the university was commended for the actions it did take, ultimately, those actions were insufficient. The Employment Court was critical of the university’s delay in responding to safety concerns and the university’s misplaced focus on Dr Wiles’ outside activities. The court found that the onus was on the university to obtain the right health and safety advice, and proactively put a plan in place. By failing to do so, the university was not acting in good faith and was breaching its contractual obligations to be a good employer.

This ruling serves as a good reminder that employers, especially those in the public sector or that engage with the public, should consider health and safety risks in relation to employees’ work-related activities, including where those activities pose a risk of harassment. Employers may also be responsible for work related activities occurring outside of an employee’s work premises and normal working hours.

New bill to improve consumer data rights

Parliament is currently considering the Customer and Product Data Bill – a bill designed to increase consumer control over their data. It is currently with the select committee. If passed, the legislation will create an obligation for businesses that possess customer data to provide, on request, that data to those customers and certain third parties.

The bill will help consumers access their data to compare services and change providers, making it easier for new or smaller businesses in an industry to compete with the ‘big players.’ The bill introduces hefty fines for non-compliance, including a fine of up to $50,000 for failing to respond to a data request and a fine of up to $5 million for making an unauthorised data request. Initially, the bill will only apply to the banking, electricity, and telecommunications sectors.

Changes to insurance industry coming

The Contracts of Insurance Bill, that awaits its second reading, will make significant changes to the rights of policyholders and insurers to promote confidence in the insurance market and ensure that insurers operate fairly. The bill proposes several changes to insurance contracts legislation, including:

Disclosure duties: The bill draws a distinction between consumer policyholders (where the insurance contract is for personal, domestic or household purposes) and non-consumer policyholders. Consumer policyholders will have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
Non-consumer policyholders will have a duty to make a fair representation of the risk. This shifts the burden on insurers to ask the right questions to reveal all the information they need
Unfair contract terms: The bill removes the existing exception for standard form insurance contracts from the unfair contract term provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1986. In other words, the unfair contract terms regime will apply more widely to insurance contracts, meaning insurers must make sure that the provisions of their insurance contracts are fair.
There are still some exceptions in insurance contracts that will not be subject to the unfair contract terms regime, including event, subject or risk insured, sum insured, the basis for settling claims, excess, and exclusions or limited liability in certain circumstances, and
Proportionate remedies: Insurers will no longer be able to avoid an insurance contract for any failure or misrepresentation of a policyholder. Instead, insurers will have proportionate remedies based on how it would have responded if it had known the relevant information, such as reducing the amount paid on a claim.

Uber appeal dismissed: drivers are employees

In 2022, the Employment Court made a landmark ruling against Uber when it found four Uber drivers were employees and not independent contractors.^[2] Uber appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal issued its decision in August.^[3] The Court of Appeal criticised the Employment Court’s approach, stating that the first step should be to look at the parties’ agreement governing the relationship, rather than whether the individual is vulnerable or suffering from an imbalance of power. Ultimately, however, the focus should still be on the parties’ mutual rights and obligations, interpreted objectively.

Despite these criticisms, the Court of Appeal still dismissed the appeal affirming the finding that Uber drivers are employees. This means Uber must provide the drivers with employee benefits, including minimum wage, leave entitlements and holiday pay.

The decision only applies to the four Uber drivers, but it has implications for all businesses that engage contractors, particularly for those operating in the gig economy. It is a timely reminder for businesses that rely on contractor workforces to ensure their contracts accurately reflect the nature of the relationship with their workers.

The Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden has indicated that the coalition government intends to amend the Employment Relations Act in 2025 to increase certainty and clarity for contractors and businesses regarding employment status of workers. The changes will provide a four part gateway test which, if met, would mean a worker is a contractor. More information on the government’s announcement can be found here.

If you would like to know more about how any of the items in Business briefs may affect you and your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

^[1] Wiles v University of Auckland [2024] NZEmpC 123.

^[2] E Tū Inc v Rasier OperaAons BV [2022] NZEmpC 192.

^[3] Rasier OperaAons BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650

Embracing Tikanga Māori in your commercial contracts

September 25, 2024

Commercial, Employment, Your Own Business

Seeking ways to respect and incorporate differences into business practices

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of incorporating – and (more importantly) the desire to incorporate – Tikanga Māori into commercial contracts.

To some extent, this shift is due to the growing appreciation that contracts should not only be robust and enforceable, but also culturally inclusive and reflective of our collective New Zealand heritage. Many people, however, particularly those not brought up in Te Ao Māori (the Māori culture), can find this daunting and maybe a little scary.

What is Tikanga Māori?

Tikanga Māori refers to Māori customs, values and practices. The word ‘Tikanga’ comes from the word ‘tika’ that means ‘correct’ or ‘right’; essentially, it is the ‘right way’ to do things.

In the context of commercial contracts, Tikanga can cover a range of concepts, from the way you manage relationships, to how you carry out your obligations. However, Tikanga is not a one-size-fits-all concept; its meaning and application can vary depending on the region, the iwi (tribe) and the parties involved.

For non-Māori businesspeople who are used to clear, documented processes, this can be challenging, especially if you are worried about putting a foot wrong. Integrating Tikanga into commercial contracts, however, generally just involves the careful blending of Māori and Pākehā perspectives to create agreements that are long-term, community-focused and ethically grounded. Tikanga acknowledges the differences between Māori and Pākehā approaches but also actively seeks ways to respect and incorporate these differences into commercial practices.

Why incorporate Tikanga Māori?

There are several reasons we should consider incorporating Tikanga Māori elements into our contracts. These include:

Relationships: As Tikanga Māori places a high priority on relationships, emphasising trust, mutual respect and reciprocity, incorporating these values into contracts can help to strengthen the bonds between businesses and Māori partners, which can ensure longer-term, sustainable partnerships
Cultural competence and respect: Incorporating Tikanga Māori into contracts can help to show your business’ commitment to understand and respect Māori culture. This may not only enhance your reputation, but also help build trust within Māori communities and stakeholders
Enhanced dispute resolution: Tikanga Māori offers alternative dispute resolution methods, focused more on restoring harmony and balance than penalising/default mechanisms. This can lead to more agreeable and lasting solutions if there is disagreement, and
Alignment with Te Tiriti o Waitangi: One of the aims of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is to preserve the partnership between Māori and the Crown. Incorporating Tikanga Māori into contracts may help to demonstrate your commitment in upholding these values.

Looking ahead

If any of the above resonates with you, consider doing some of the following in your business:

Think longer time frames: In Te Ao Māori (the Māori worldview), time is often considered in generations rather than years. Māori organisations frequently plan with a longer-term perspective, focusing on the wellbeing of future generations rather than immediate short-term gains. This longer-term approach means that your contracts should ideally consider the broader implications, looking beyond the immediate benefits and considering longer-term issues such as community goals and sustainability, and
Focus on relationships: We tend to concentrate on our own individual obligations and financial outcomes when negotiating contracts. In a Tikanga Māori approach, however, the focus is more on relationships — both between the parties and with the wider community. This means that contracts should seek to prioritise, among other things, mutual respect, collective responsibility and the ongoing relationship between the parties.

You could consider including provisions that acknowledge the importance of whakapapa (genealogy) and manaakitanga (hospitality and respect), seeking to ensure that the contract strengthens, rather than undermines, relationships:

Consult with experts: Engage with Māori advisors, legal professionals or kaumātua (elders) while preparing your contracts. Their insights can ensure that the incorporation of Tikanga Māori is both authentic and appropriate in the context
Use Te Reo Māori: Where relevant and appropriate, consider including Te Reo Māori (Māori language) as part of the contract – whether as bilingual clauses or simply incorporating Te Reo Māori alongside the English words – as we have done in this article, and
Tweak your disputes clauses: Standard commercial contracts often include formal arbitration or court processes as dispute resolution mechanisms. Māori dispute resolution, however, leans more towards consensus and the restoration of harmony, as well as the concept of kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) discussions rather than battling it out through lawyers or email. Incorporating these processes into contracts can help ensure that disputes are resolved in a manner consistent with Tikanga.

Using Tikanga Māori principles is advantageous

Incorporating Tikanga Māori principles into commercial contracts is a growing practice in this country. Doing so can result in agreements that are not only legally robust, but also culturally inclusive and ethically grounded. This approach can be beneficial to all parties, enhancing the relationship and supporting longer-term, sustainable partnerships.

Whaowhia te kete mātauranga:

Fill the basket with knowledge.

Are Uber drivers employees and why does that matter for you?

August 29, 2024

Nicolette Brodnax

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Uncategorized, Your Own Business

A case from the Court of Appeal on Monday acts as an urgent reminder that you can’t contract out of the Employment Relations Act (the Act) and that includes by calling the relationship an independent contract when it is not. The case involved four Uber drivers and the companies that own and run Uber Drive and Uber Eats.

Uber argued that they were not employers but provided an introduction service. Interestingly, adapting to new ways of working, the Court held that the drivers were all employees when they were logged in to the Uber Drive App.

Using an independent contractor rather than taking on an employee is attractive because it cuts out a whole swathe of costs, paperwork, responsibility and inconvenience: holidays, sick leave, termination issues and PAYE to name a few. If you get the nature of the relationship wrong however, it can have an enormous impact on the employer: investigation, prosecution, fines and penalties, PAYE arrears, holiday pay arrears and much, much more.

So how do we know when a relationship is actually employment if we can’t rely on what the parties themselves agree in the contract? The answer is section 6 of the Act. Section 6 requires the court to focus on the realities of the parties’ mutual rights and obligations. In particular: how is the relationship working in practice (especially if that differs from the contract)?

Three key issues that the Court must weigh up are:

the extent of the control over the worker,
the degree of integration of the worker into the business, and
the “fundamental test” of whether the worker is carrying on their own (independent) business.

The Uber case in particular emphasised Uber’s control of the workers which included Uber controlling fare setting and performance management, and right to discipline. They looked at the practice as it varied from the contract: even though the drivers could theoretically choose when and where they worked, they were penalised for not working regularly. They were not an independent business as the drivers were restrained by Uber from expanding their business. For example, there was a ban on contacting clients independently.

This situation might not be substantially different from many ‘independent contracts’ on our farms or in a small business setting.

If you have an independent contractor and that worker only works for you (perhaps because you do not permit subcontracting or them taking on other jobs, or simply because the job takes up all available time), if you can dictate what that worker must do from day to day and how they do it, if you can discipline them, if they work on your site and you provide most of the equipment, then it might be time to take a second look and seek independent professional advice.