Edmonds Judd

ERA

Hiring casual employees

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


Personal grievances

Employers must act in good faith

In today’s ever-changing employment landscape, employers face a myriad of challenges. A single misstep can lead to (amongst other things) personal grievance claims, a fractured workplace culture and tainted reputations. Understanding the risk of making a blunder is essential.

If one of your employees has a complaint about their employment, they can raise a personal grievance claim against you. The grounds for a grievance are almost limitless, but common grounds include complaints about being unfairly fired, discriminated against, bullied or disadvantaged in some way.

Employees have 90 days (or 12 months in the case of sexual harassment) to bring a grievance. This begins on the date that the action allegedly occurred or came to the notice of your employee, whichever is later.

As an employer, you can agree to a grievance being raised late or you may inadvertently do so by responding to it (i.e.: it has been raised out of time, but you mistakenly legitimised it by responding to it). The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) can allow a longer period, but only in exceptional circumstances and if it is just to do so.

Good faith

As an employer, you can reduce the risk of grievances by having a sound understanding of your responsibilities. The key is to always act in good faith. This means acting reasonably and honestly, and communicating well with your employees about anything that may affect their employment.

It is not always obvious, however, what good faith requires in practice. It often goes wrong if you want to end your employee’s employment. You must be able to point to good reasons for their dismissal and demonstrate that a fair process has been followed. If you trip up on either part, a successful grievance for unjustified dismissal can result.

All employers also have a range of statutory duties that must be followed, such as:

  • Providing safe work and a safe workplace
  • Paying the agreed wages or salary, and paying at least the minimum wage
  • Providing rest and meal breaks, and
  • Ensuring you provide minimum leave entitlements.

Consequences

The consequences of getting it wrong can be severe for a business. These include:

  • Legal costs
  • Time and cost of taking part in mediation and/or a hearing in the ERA (and a potential appeal)
  • Cost of settling a grievance, including being ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, legal costs or other monetary penalties by the ERA
  • Negative publicity and reputational damage, and
  • Disruption in your workplace, and negative impacts on your workplace culture.

Compensation awards have been trending upwards in recent years. In June 2023,[1] for example, the Employment Court awarded an employee $25,000 in compensation as well as three months’ lost wages following a successful unjustified dismissal claim.

An issue in that case was their employer had included Tikanga practices and values into its employment framework but failed to comply with them when undertaking its dismissal process. The court found the failure to do so was a breach of their employer’s good faith obligations.

However, it’s not just mistakes in dismissal processes that can lead to successful grievances. In a very recent case,[2] the ERA ordered an employer to pay $13,720 to their employee; they had failed to keep accurate leave records, pay proper holiday pay and a dispute had arisen over bereavement and other leave. Their employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged.

In another recent case,[3] an employee was awarded $105,000 in compensation for bullying, unjustified suspension and unjustified dismissal. Their employer was also ordered to pay more than $32,000 for lost wages and to pay a $1,000 penalty. Although this was at the high end of the compensation awards range, this case not only shows us what can happen when an employer gets it wrong, but also the range of potential awards the ERA can make and punishments that can be imposed on an employer.

Be proactive

All employers should navigate the risks of grievances by being proactive. If you are unsure about your workplace processes and/or have a potential personal grievance claim on the horizon, do talk with us early on. That is always better than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

 

[1] GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101 EMPC 317/2021.

[2] Stringer v McBride [2024] NZERA 59.

[3] Parker v Magnum Hire Ltd [2024] NZERA 85.

 

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


Extended from 90 days to 12 months

The Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Act came into force on 13 June 2023. It has extended the timeframe in which a personal grievance (PG) can be raised when sexual harassment has occurred at work.

The timeframe now allows a PG to be raised within 12 months of the harassment occurring or coming to an employee’s attention, rather than the former period of 90 days. The purpose of this amendment is to allow sexual harassment victims more time to come to terms with what has happened before deciding whether or not to raise a PG.

Employment law fundamentals

Employment law in New Zealand is underpinned by the Employment Relations Act 2000; it promotes productive employment relationships and encourages employers and employees to act in good faith in all aspects of the employment environment. This is achieved by specific processes to help parties resolve employment disputes in a quick and flexible way, such as allowing an employee to raise a PG. A PG is a complaint that allows an employer and employee to address, amongst other things, a sexual harassment claim.

What is a personal grievance?

You may raise a PG against your current or former employer if you believe you have been treated unfairly or unreasonably. This includes situations where you think you have been:

  • Unjustifiably dismissed
  • Unjustifiably disadvantaged
  • Discriminated against in your employment
  • Sexually harassed in your employment
  • Treated adversely in your employment on the grounds of family violence, or
  • Racially harassed.

When deciding if an act or dismissal was justified, your employer, the mediator or the Employment Relations Authority must consider what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.

You can choose to raise a PG with your employer directly or via the Employment Relations Authority. To raise a PG, you have 90 days, or  12 months for instances of sexual harassment, from the date the action or dismissal occurred or from when you became aware of it. You can, however, raise a PG after the 90-day period has expired in other circumstances if your employer agrees.

Defining sexual harassment

Sexual harassment is unwelcome or offensive sexual behaviour that is either repeated or serious enough to have a harmful effect. It can be direct or indirect. Sexual harassment does not have to be physical; it can also be through written, verbal or visual materials/actions. You may only raise a PG for sexual harassment if it has occurred during the term of your employment. Sexual harassment is defined in sections 108 and 117 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Know your rights

It is important for both employees and employers to know their rights and obligations surrounding personal grievances. Employers should ensure their employment agreements are updated to reflect the above amendments.

 

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


Postscript

Minimum wage increased on 1 April 2023

The adult minimum wage increased to $22.70/hour on 1 April 2023.

 

This is a significant increase, up from $21.20, and aligns with the 7.2% rate of CPI inflation in the year to 31 December 2022.

 

Also increased on 1 April were the training and starting-out minimum wage rates that are increased to $18.16/hour; this is 80% of the adult minimum wage.

 

For an employee who works 40 hours/week, the minimum wage rise to $22.70/hour means they earn an additional $60 each week before tax.

 

The government says it will review the minimum wage rate later this year.

 

Renew your employeespay rates

If you haven’t done so already, you should review your employees’ pay rates to ensure you are compliant with the new minimum wages. For employees on a wage this is a straightforward process as you only need to ensure that their wages are at least $22.70/hour. This is not the case for all employees, however, as it includes those on a salary whose current pay rates may be sufficient when they work overtime.

 

During busy times, salaried employees often work hours over and above their regular employment agreement hours. You should check the pay of these employees every pay period to ensure their pay divided by the actual hours they worked meets minimum wage requirements. If not, your employee’s pay must be topped up to at least the minimum wage, regardless of whether any term in their employment agreement says otherwise.

 

Failing to keep accurate time records could lead to a penalty under the Employment Relations Act 2000 or Holidays Act 2003.

 

You should also take the opportunity to ensure your time recording systems are accurate.

 

 

Improving the sustainability of your supply chain

All businesses in New Zealand should be working towards making their supply chain more sustainable – we all have a responsibility to help save the planet.

 

The Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment states that about 70% of your business’s sustainability impact comes from your supply chain – so this is a good place to start.

 

Launched in February 2023, Docket provides a free (and short) online assessment, and practical tools and guides for you to see how well your business is caring for the environment and your team. Docket was created by the Sustainable Business Network in partnership with the government and the private sector.

 

To find out more, go here: https://sustainable.org.nz/docket/

 

 

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


Insta # dismissal?

Employers, disrepute and social media

Whether we like it or not, social media affects almost every aspect of our daily lives, including employment relationships. How can employees’ ‘private’ social media posts bring an employer’s business into disrepute and lead to an employee’s dismissal? Shouldn’t employees have privacy out of work? On the other hand, if a post adversely affects an employer, shouldn’t they be able to act?

 

The problem with social media

Gone are the days of casual conversations with a limited audience. Social media can reach thousands of people with the click of a button and filter into real life to have an impact on our working environment. An employee’s social media posts ‘shared’ only with family and friends, may ultimately be far from ‘private’. That post or a screenshot can be forwarded and shared with a limitless audience.

 

A social media post (or a like, comment, hashtag or tweet) is often made emotionally or in the heat of the moment, but can be permanent and can quickly cause damage and/or have effects on a business — with far-reaching consequences.

 

Bringing your employer into disrepute

As an employee, if your conduct impacts (or potentially impacts) adversely on your employer’s business or reputation, you could be deemed to bring your employer into disrepute. It is conduct that intrudes on your workplace relationships and obligations, or your ability to do your job. It could be during working hours or outside of it, but there must be a clear link between the conduct and employment.

 

The line between personal opinion and employer disrepute is murky. Employers need to consider whether an objective, fair-minded and independent observer aware of the circumstances could have considered an employee’s actions/posts have brought or carry a reasonable risk of bringing it into disrepute.

 

Some examples leading to dismissal

The range of behaviour is wide but whether it is bad enough to warrant dismissal will depend on an employee’s position and the sector in which the employer operates.

 

In a recent case[1], the dismissal of a nurse was justified after she posted her views on vaccination on Facebook. While she argued the posts were private, was unaware of their reach and posted opinions often shared by others, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) disagreed. There was a significant risk of harm to her DHB employer’s reputation if her posts had been viewed by the wider public, especially as she was a community nurse.

 

In some cases, liking or commenting on someone else’s posts may be enough to bring an employer into disrepute. In a 2014 case[2], an employment advocate (who was representing an employee) made negative posts about that person’s employer. The employee (whose Facebook identified her employer) liked the advocate’s posts.  She was endorsing disparaging views and ensuring the posts were shared with her ‘friends’ who were other employees or customers. Her dismissal was justified.

 

Social media posts may also affect the work environment, or lead to claims of bullying and harassment within it. Examples include employees sharing explicit videos with other employees (even outside of work) via Facebook Messenger or making offensive comments about other employees. All employees should think twice before posting embarrassing work party photos, as this could also be found to be bullying or harassment.

 

What about privacy?

As an employer, you may become aware of social media posts because you are a ‘friend’ or ‘follower’ of your employee or have been provided them by someone who is.

No privacy breach will occur if a legitimate recipient provides this to you; as social media is objectively in the public domain and may go beyond ‘friends’ and ’followers.’ You cannot force your employee to give you access to their private accounts or coerce others into doing so.

 

When the matter ends up before the ERA, it has the power to order disclosure of this material, if it is relevent. The ERA may also order your employee not to make any posts on social media about your business, employees or any confidential information.

 

What can you do?

Employees must always think twice when posting on social media. If you are posting anything which may be associated with your employer, your workplace or that may impact on your ability to do your job you should err on the side of caution. Where your workplace has a distinctive brand or uniform ensure these are not in any post unless your employer has authorised this placement.

 

Employers should have a social media and internet use policy in place and/or a clause in employment agreements. Investigate any allegations and follow a full and fair process before making any decisions, particularly where there is the possibility your employee may be dismissed. You must also be careful of your own social media posts of, or about, employees.

 

Social media can be a minefield from an employment viewpoint. If you need any guidance, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] Turner v Wairarapa District Health Board [2022] NZERA 259

[2] Blylevens v Kidicorp Limited [2014] NZERA Auckland 373

 

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