+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

First Job

GST and land transactions

Business & Investment, Commercial, Employment, Estate, Fair Trading, Financial Services Regulation, First Job
0

Understanding your tax obligations

 

If you are buying or selling land (with or without a home on the section), it is important to have an accurate understanding about your tax obligations and whether GST will be applicable to your transaction.

GST is not typically applicable in residential sale and purchase transactions but, if you are GST-registered and the sale is part of your taxable activity, GST may apply.

Potential GST outcomes

If the buyer and seller are both GST-registered, the transfer of land is part of a taxable activity (for example: farming, or a commercial building), and the property is not used as a private residence, the transfers are typically zero-rated for GST (meaning GST is charged on the transaction at a rate of 0%).

If the buyer is GST-registered and the seller is not GST-registered, and the buyer intends to use the land as part of a taxable activity, the buyer may be able to claim GST.

If the seller is GST-registered (and claimed GST) and sells the land to a buyer who is not GST-registered, or does not intend to use the land as part of a taxable activity, the seller may need to return GST to Inland Revenue following the sale.

There can be additional complications where some part of the property is used for private purposes, and some part is used for a taxable activity. In this instance, some of the purchase price may be subject to GST, but some part of it may not.

Warranty as to GST status

The standard sale and purchase of real estate agreement contains a statement on the front page – ‘the vendor is registered under the GST Act in respect of this transaction and/or will be so registered at settlement.’

If you are GST-registered and the sale is a taxable supply, you will need to complete schedule one in the agreement. As a seller, you will need to tick either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this statement. You must provide a warranty that the answer you provide is correct and will remain correct as at settlement. If it later transpires that your answer was incorrect, you have breached a warranty and could be liable to the buyer for any losses they have suffered because of this breach. For example, if you provided a warranty that you were not GST-registered in relation to the transaction, the buyer may presume that they may claim GST from Inland Revenue following settlement if they will be GST-registered and intend to use the property for taxable supply. If you were, in fact, GST-registered, the buyer will not be able to do that, therefore you may be required to reimburse 15% of the purchase price to the buyer due to your breach of warranty.

If you are the buyer, the agreement contemplates your GST status potentially changing throughout the transaction. For example, you may initially sign the agreement in your personal name (and you are not GST-registered) and later you nominate a GST-registered company to complete the purchase.

The purchase price will be expressed as either ‘plus GST (if any)’ or ‘inclusive of GST (if any),’ which dictates how much you need to pay on settlement, depending on your GST status. It should be clear to all parties whether the buyer will be GST-registered on settlement date, as this can have GST implications for both parties.

Purchase price allocation

If GST is applicable to the transaction, you should consider whether you should agree with the other party on a purchase price allocation; completing a purchase price allocation is highly recommended in some situations since GST may be claimable on some items, but not others.

If the buyer and seller agree on a purchase price allocation in the agreement, this allocation must be used by both the seller and buyer when completing their respective tax returns. This provides certainty to both parties. The purchase price allocation can therefore have tax consequences for both buyer and seller, so it is important to get accounting advice on this allocation before signing the agreement.

Where to from here?

If GST is (or may be) applicable to your transaction, it is important that you get legal and accounting advice before signing the agreement. A mistake in the agreement cannot always be fixed by your professional advisers after signing; it could result in an unexpected GST bill, which can be very costly. We and your accountant will work together to ensure that the sale and purchase agreement accurately reflects your GST position and that you fully understand any potential tax consequences before signing the agreement.

 

 

 

 

[1] Purchase price allocation is where the price is allocated between the land and any buildings, and other fixtures, fittings, chattels or improvements.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking 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 Property Speaking 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

 

Property-briefs

Property Briefs

Business Ethics, First Job, House, Media, Politics & Government, Social Media, Trusts
0

Healthy home standards compliance from 1 July 2025

First introduced in 2019, healthy home standards are the minimum legal standards expected of rental properties in New Zealand. These include:

  • Heating (provision of functioning and fixed (not portable), heaters in the main living room)
  • Ceiling and underfloor insulation, and
  • Adequate ventilation (functioning doors and windows, and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathrooms).

From 1 July 2025, all landlords are responsible for ensuring their rental properties comply with healthy homes standards (and continue to comply with them over time). Landlords who do not comply will be in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and can be penalised up to $7,200 per breach. Landlords who are ignorant of these changes or disorganised will not be excused.

Landlords in new or renewed tenancy agreements must include a signed statement detailing the property’s compliance with the standards. Failing to do so can result in a penalty. There are also penalties to the landlord if they provide misleading information in compliance statements.

If you are a tenant and you are concerned that your rental property does not comply with healthy homes standards, we recommend having a friendly chat to your landlord first. Failing that, please contact us and we can help you explore your options.

On the other hand, if you are a landlord and are concerned about your obligations under the healthy homes standards, please come and see us for advice.

Sunset clauses – the new bill introduced into Parliament

The Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 April 2025 and is tracking towards its first reading. The bill is aimed at restricting sellers developing vacant plots of land from using ‘sunset clauses’ to cancel sale and purchase agreements. It also provides an extra layer of protection to buyers who, in good faith, have made the commitment to purchase the property.

In this context, a ‘sunset clause’ is a provision added to an agreement for the sale and purchase of a plot of land in development which allows the seller or buyer the option to cancel the agreement if the development is not complete by the specified date.

There have previously been situations in which sellers have used these clauses to cancel an agreement, where there have been delays in development, only to then go and list the property at a higher price.

This legislation would require the seller to obtain the buyer’s written consent to cancel the agreement under a sunset clause. There would also be the requirement to give sufficient notice of, and reasons for, the proposed cancellation to the buyer in advance. This is the extra layer of protection given to the buyer.

If the buyer does not consent to the agreement being cancelled, the seller would need to apply to the High Court for an order permitting the cancellation. On the seller’s application, the court would only make the order if it is satisfied that its making would be ‘just and equitable in all the circumstances.’ The court would consider various factors including whether the seller has acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the reason for the delay in completing the development, whether the land has increased in value and the effect of the cancellation on the buyer.

If this law is passed and you are a seller or buyer who seeks to activate a sunset clause, please get in touch with us – we would be happy to assist you.

Real estate agent commission – claim or not to claim?

Before a real estate agent lists a seller’s property, the parties enter into a ‘listing agreement’ or ‘agency agreement,’ authorising the agent to sell the property on the seller’s behalf.

The real estate agent receives a commission (a percentage of the sale proceeds) for introducing the buyer to the property. The real estate agent usually takes their commission out of the deposit the buyer pays when the agreement for sale and purchase becomes unconditional.

However, there are some situations in which an agent is not entitled to be paid their commission:

  • Where there is no listing agreement in place
  • If an agreement for sale and purchase does not become unconditional and is cancelled, and
  • If the property is pulled from the market and the seller cancels the listing agreement (but note that the agent may still charge a fee).

If you are considering selling your property and have any questions about entering into a listing agreement, please come and see us for advice first.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking 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 Property Speaking 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

 

Emissions Trading Scheme

Commercial, Employment, Estate, First Job, Health Issues, Online, Property
0

A change in approach?

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will turn 17 years old in September. An integral part of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008, the ETS has undergone significant change throughout its existence.

 

What is the ETS?

The ETS is New Zealand’s main tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It essentially works by requiring participating businesses to measure and report on their greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses that participate in the scheme must surrender what is known as an ‘emissions unit’ for each tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit. One tonne of CO2 will cost you one emissions unit.

Over time, the government will reduce the number of units that are supplied into the ETS. The effect of this is that emissions units increase in demand as participating businesses buy and sell emissions units from each other. The price of emissions units in the ETS will (in theory) trend upwards, helping New Zealand to steadily move towards the goal of being a net zero emitter of greenhouse gas by 2050.

 

Recent developments in the ETS

There has been some concern regarding the conversion of productive farmland into forestry in order to gain emissions units. The government has announced changes to the ETS; its aim is to strike a balance between achieving New Zealand’s climate goals, and protecting the longevity of our most profitable farmland.

The government has signalled that the proposed changes to the ETS will be formally introduced to the House this year, with the new rules expected to come into force by October 2025.

 

All trees created equal?

The most significant proposed change to the ETS is the temporary prohibition of the registration of exotic forestry (non-native) for emissions units on Land Use Capability (LUC) 1–5 farmland. LUC separates land into eight categories based on an assessment of the land’s capability for use. LUC Class 1 land is the most versatile, with LUC Class 8 land being the least versatile.

At present, any tree can be planted on any farmland to earn emissions units (provided the tree species planted can reach at least five metres in height). This means there is no incentive to prioritise the planting of native trees over the planting of exotic species, such as the Radiata pine.

The proposed changes will also require ETS participants to exercise greater discretion in choosing which areas of farmland to plant on; should you wish to plant an exotic species, you must do so on your less productive land.

 

A flexible approach

The proposed rules are not entirely hard and fast as there is some wriggle room for ETS participants. Up to 25% of LUC Class 1–6 land on a farm can be used to plant exotic forestry for the purpose of registering it under the ETS.

The proposed new rules have also scrapped plans to include agricultural processors (meat processors, dairy processors, nitrogen fertiliser manufacturers and importers, live animal exporters) in the ETS. Agricultural processors had been due to enter the ETS from 1 January 2025, but the passing of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill on 26 November 2024 has stopped this.

 

Why the changes?

The proposed changes clearly signal the government’s desire to promote the planting of native species. It appears, however, that consideration has been given to the idea that ETS participants have benefitted from the planting of exotic species that can be planted en masse and grow quickly. This practice will remain, with the caveat being that it will need to take place on less productive farmland.

A loved one has lost capacity, now what?

Employment, Estate, First Job, House, Kids, Media, News, Property, Relationships, Retirement
0

What happens if your loved one loses mental capacity due to illness or accident?  Who will make decisions about whether they need to go into care?  Who can manage their finances to pay for their medical costs and living costs?

 

Hopefully your loved one has enduring powers of attorney in place appointing people to make decisions about their welfare and property.  But what if there are no enduring powers of attorney?

 

In that case, you will need to apply to the Family Court for orders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR).  There are various types of court orders that can be made appointing one or more people to manage someone else’s affairs.  Deciding which court orders to apply for depends on the circumstances and needs of the person who has lost capacity.

 

Before applying to the court, you should be aware of the strict legal obligations and responsibilities you will have if appointed, and that the court will have ongoing oversight to ensure affairs are being managed appropriately.

 

While it may cost a few hundred dollars to get enduring powers of attorney while someone is healthy, it can cost a few thousand dollars to get court orders if  they lose capacity there are no enduring powers of attorney in place.  So, it is a good idea to encourage your loved ones to get enduring powers of attorney while they are still healthy.

Kerry Bowler, Solicitor Kerry Bowler

Handling an employee’s poor performance

Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Relationships
0

Luke’s juggling a lot right now—his first baby on the way, a crash in Sally’s Tesla, and new business work piling up. But his biggest challenge? His employee, John.

John does not have the experience he made out during his interview and he is not able to complete tasks given to him.

Luke has done his best to mentor John and to train him on the job, but John doesn’t seem to want to learn or improve. Luke is at his wits’ end as his business can’t continue like this. Luke has no idea what to do to fix the situation with John and is not sure if he can just let John go.

First things first, Luke pulls up a copy of John’s employment agreement to see what it says about dealing with poor performance. Luckily for Luke, the employment agreement sets out exactly what he should do as his agreement sets out a process for addressing poor performance. He also recalls his lawyer telling him that the Employment Relations Act requires employers to act in a fair and reasonable way and to act in good faith towards John.

Luke has also realised that he can’t just fire John for his poor performance.

Luke can see that his mentoring John was a good start, but it is clear to him that he now needs to take the formal steps set out in the employment agreement to let John know that he is concerned about his performance and that he will place him on a performance improvement plan.

After having a chat with his lawyer, Luke finds out that some of the steps that he is going to need to take are:

  1. Identify the issues with John’s performance: clearly identify the performance problem, whether it’s related to the quality, quantity, or timeliness of John’s work.

 

  1. Communicate his concerns to John: Luke decides to invite John to a meeting to discuss his performance. He’s then going to meet with John to discuss the performance issues, explaining what areas need improvement and why it’s affecting the workplace.

 

  1. Provide support and clear expectations: Luke realises he needs to offer support, so, he has decided to offer John some further training and additional resources. He’s also going to set clear, achievable performance goals and a reasonable timeframe for improvement, and let John know the possible consequences if his performance does not improve.

 

  1. Monitor John’s progress: Luke has set up some reminders in his diary to monitor John’s progress towards meeting the set performance goals and provide regular feedback during meetings.

 

  1. Hold a formal review: If John’s performance doesn’t improve, Luke will arrange a formal review meeting for John to respond to the feedback.

 

  1. Implementation of further performance improvement plans, final warning or dismissal: If there is still no improvement, Luke now knows that he has some options about how to proceed from there – such as a performance improvement plan, issuing a final warning, or, in more serious cases, proceeding with dismissal.

Luke has decided to keep in touch with his lawyer as he works through the process with John to make sure that he meets his obligations as an employer. He’s keeping his fingers crossed that John will improve, and that a formal review and other actions won’t be necessary.

 

Kristin O’Toole

 

 

 

Annual Leave and the Path to Parenthood: Luke’s Story

Employment, First Job, House, Kids, Latest news, Media, News, Uncategorized
0

Luke is very excited about the impending birth of his first child and is taking the time to reflect on his life so far. As he is driving to the store to pick up some groceries, he recalls the first job he ever had – working as a bartender in a lovely little Scottish pub in Dunedin. His pay wasn’t significant back in those days, but he worked hard and he saved his pennies. It wasn’t long before he’d saved up enough to go on a big holiday!

Luke had always dreamed of flying to Indonesia to see the Komodo dragons in the wild. Once he was sure he had enough in the bank, he went to ask his manager, Mr Moyes, if he could have some time off.

“Tell me lad,” Mr Moyes said, furrowing his brow, “how long have you been working for me now?”

“Why, nearly six months, Mr Moyes! I reckon I deserve a break” Luke said, sheepishly. Beads of sweat began to drip down his pimply face.

“Well, Luke,” Mr Moyes began, shifting uncomfortably in his seat, “it’s not that I don’t think you deserve a nice holiday. Aye, you’re an excellent worker, and you have a knowledge of whisky as fine as any Scotsman! But I just wonder, won’t the shortfall from the lack of wages during your holiday be an issue?”

Luke gulped.

“But sir, I thought I would simply take annual leave. After all, I’ve accrued ten days’ worth. That’s more than enough for my holiday, assuming it doesn’t take longer than that to find the Komodo dragons.”

“Well, you see Luke,” Mr Moyes responded, offering a wry grin. “Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, you can’t actually take annual leave until you’ve been working continuously at the same place for 12 months. You continue to accrue it, yes, but there’s no entitlement to actually take the accrued leave until your first anniversary of employment. You can take annual leave you’ve accrued before then, but this is at my sole discretion, being your gaffer and all”.

“Oh,” Luke exclaimed, crestfallen. He had so been looking forward to travelling to Indonesia. Mr Moyes looked him up and down and sighed.

“Tell ya what lad, I think we’ll manage without you. You can take the leave you’ve accrued, no problem”.

Luke jumped for joy. He was going to Indonesia! He paused, wondering if he could try his luck further.

 

“Actually Mr Moyes, how would you feel if I went to Indonesia for three weeks instead of two?” Mr Moyes jumped out of his seat.

“That’s a bit cheeky!” he said, his eyes as big as wagon wheels. “But alright, you can take leave that you haven’t accrued yet in this country too, also at my own discretion. Just be warned, though. If you leave my employ before you’ve accrued that extra week of leave, I’ll require you to pay me back. Every cent!”

Mr Moyes’s warning fell on deaf ears though, as Luke could think only about Indonesia, sipping on coconuts and surveying the local fauna.

Of course, Mr Moyes was right.  Most employees are entitled to four weeks of annual holidays, and they start accruing this leave from their first day on the job. Accrued leave then sits there, unused, until the 12-month anniversary of your employment. Your employer can let you take the leave you’ve accrued before the 12-month anniversary, but this is at their sole discretion.

 

You can also take leave before you’ve accrued it but this can be risky, as you may have to pay your employer the difference, if you resign before it’s accrued.


Luke snapped back to reality. He hadn’t worked for Mr Moyes for some time now, but he would always remember his words and his warning. He smiled, and thought about the life lessons he would pass down to his child. Unfortunately, contemplating this was very distracting for Luke, and he crashed into the car in front of him! Luckily, no one was hurt, but Luke wondered what Sally would think of him crashing her brand new Tesla…

 

Jamie Graham

Fair Pay Agreements Repeal Act 2023

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Your Own Business
0

What this has meant for you

Many people welcomed the introduction of the original Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 (FPA) to set minimum pay and working conditions across various sectors. Others worried it could limit flexibility or create extra compliance costs. Now, the Fair Pay Agreements Repeal Act 2023, enacted just over a year ago, has turned back the clock on these industry-wide agreements.

 

Why repeal?

The main reason for the repeal stemmed from a change in government policy. The FPA, introduced by the previous government, aimed to improve wages and standardise conditions for employees in historically low pay sectors such as cleaners, hospitality workers and early childhood educators. Critics argued that this approach was too broad, as it could force employers to follow terms that they hadn’t agreed on, leading to reduced flexibility in workplaces.

 

By repealing the FPA, the current government signalled that pay and conditions should largely be negotiated between individual employers and employees or through standard collective bargaining processes rather than a universal, sector-wide system. Supporters of the repeal believed this would allow businesses to be more agile and able to respond quickly to changing market conditions.

 

Implications for employees and unions

For employees who would have benefitted from agreements under the FPA, the repeal has meant a return to individual employment agreements or traditional collective bargaining through unions. Workers in industries where wages are typically low may feel the difference most, especially if they were expecting a lift in pay or improved working conditions under the FPA process.

 

Unions have lost a tool for coordinating negotiations. The FPA regime gave unions a clear pathway to start negotiations on behalf of employees across an entire sector, even if there was initially low union membership. Without the FPA, unions are now focussing again on bargaining at a company level or encouraging voluntary industry-wide agreements. This may be a setback for union-led initiatives to raise pay and conditions in sectors with historically vulnerable workers.

 

Implications for employers

Employers now have more freedom to negotiate pay and conditions directly with their teams, without the worry of being locked into sector-wide rules. Businesses that operate in specialised markets or have unique staffing needs may welcome this. They can continue to tailor employment agreements to suit their circumstances, offering different pay structures, benefits or flexible arrangements.

 

On the other hand, before the repeal some employers saw a benefit in a level playing field for everyone in their industry. If all competitors had to meet the same pay and conditions then there was less concern about undercutting each other on labour costs. Those businesses may now have to keep a closer eye on what others in their sector are doing, particularly if new entrants offer lower pay.

 

Looking ahead

With the Fair Pay Agreements Repeal Act 2023 having been enacted just over a year ago, any ongoing negotiations under the FPA system may have continued in the same manner. In many cases, however, collective bargaining would have reverted to the familiar structures of individual employment agreements or smaller-scale union negotiations.

 

Unions and advocacy groups are now working on other ways to improve working conditions, such as lobbying government for different legislation or regulations. Meanwhile, most businesses wanting to be seen as good employers have developed their own internal policies to offer competitive pay and benefits. Despite the repeal, it’s unlikely the debate over fair pay will disappear. The broader issues of cost of living, pay equity and income inequality remain hot topics, particularly for Māori, Pasifika, women and young people.

 

Final thoughts

By repealing the FPA, the government returned New Zealand’s industrial relations framework to a more traditional form of negotiation. That shift has had significant effects on those who had hoped the FPA would boost minimum wages and conditions.

 

Whether you are an employee wondering about your pay, a union leader planning next steps or an employer seeking certainty around labour costs, the key takeaway is the same: make sure you understand your current rights and obligations, and be ready to adapt.

 

If you’re unsure about how this change has affected you, do talk with us. With the future of workplace legislation still in flux; staying informed and being proactive will serve you best.

 

 

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

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

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Online, Relationships, Social Media, Trusts
0

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

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

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Uncategorized, Your Own Business
0

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.

Nicolette Brodnax
Nicolette Brodnax, Special Counsel

Employee burnout

First Job, Health Issues, Your Own Business
0

Acknowledge and address this

The effects of burnout and work-related stress are an issue that both employers and employees should acknowledge and address.

 

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, organisations have a clear obligation to prevent harm not only to their employees’ physical health, but also their mental health.

 

 

What is burnout?

‘Burnout’ is the result of chronic workplace stress that is not successfully managed. The World Health Organization has stated burnout is an occupational phenomenon and it is not classified as a medical condition. Although burnout is not depression, it is recognised as a major risk factor for depression and anxiety.

 

Burnout affects people differently and the symptoms of burnout are varied. Some common symptoms include:

  • Exhaustion: Feeling drained and emotionally exhausted
  • Low productivity: Negativity about work or being unable to concentrate. This can affect the ability to carry out normal, everyday tasks at work
  • Increased mental distance from one’s job: Becoming cynical about work and distancing from one’s colleagues, and
  • Physical issues such as insomnia, headaches or stomach aches.

 

 

Employers’ obligations

You must be aware of your obligations to manage health and safety risks, including supporting any of your employees who are struggling mentally, and take steps to address the issues.

 

Prevention, as they say, is always better than cure, and in terms of preventing burnout you have a great deal of influence in setting the culture of your workplace. Burnout is often the result of an unhealthy workplace culture. Workplaces that have unmanageable workloads, unreasonable deadlines and lack of support can all contribute towards burnout. You should therefore proactively consider the following:

  • Are your employees given achievable goals?
  • Are there established processes to enable your employees to raise any issues and concerns they might have?
  • Is training provided to both your managers and employees on how to deal with mental health issues?

 

If a staff member discloses that they are struggling with burnout, you should take proactive steps to understand what is causing the issue and what is required to address it. It may be necessary to get advice from a medical professional (it is important to maintain confidentiality in line with your employee’s wishes and any privacy requirements).

 

In addressing your employee’s burnout, you should look for a solution that works for you both. It is prudent that all decisions and any agreements between you both are recorded in writing as evidence of the steps that have been taken.

 

Aside from the legal considerations of your health and safety duties, from a business perspective there is strong evidence that investing in the health and wellbeing of your staff provides a substantial return on investment. This is not surprising, given that burnout reduces productivity and is associated with high staff turnover. Taking steps to avoid employee burnout is good for business.

 

 

Feel burnt-out as an employee?

It is important you talk to someone at work as soon as possible. Although it may be difficult to talk about stress and burnout, it is vital that your workplace becomes aware of it and is given an opportunity to stop the situation from getting worse. By asking for help and support, it enables your employer to make necessary adjustments. This may include rebalancing the demands and responsibilities of your role, cutting back on unnecessary tasks or establishing a set of objectives to work towards.

 

 

A recent court case

Burnout was the issue in an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) case[1] in which an employee successfully argued that he was constructively dismissed because his employer had failed to provide him with a safe working environment.

 

The employee had raised concerns about his work-life balance and even informed his manager that he was ‘burnt out’ and could not continue due to being ‘broken by the workload.’ When his employer did not take prompt action to address these issues, the employee resigned.

 

The ERA held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee would resign unless his burnout concerns were addressed, and ruled that his employer should have taken more formal and proactive steps to understand their employee’s mental health situation. As a result, significant financial remedies were awarded to the employee, including $25,000 as compensation for hurt and humiliation.

 

 

Employers take note

Employers have a duty to protect their employees in health and safety issues, and this includes their mental health. A person’s work environment can have a significant impact on their mental wellbeing and, as a result, employers must take prompt, meaningful action should staff burnout arise.

 

If someone on your staff is struggling with burnout, it is important that they communicate this to you or their manager. For some guidance on steps to help avoid employee burnout, please contact us. We are here to help.

 

[1] Perry v The Warehouse Group Limited [2023] NZERA 773.

 

 

 

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

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]