Preston Russell Law ~ Law Leaders

Preston Russell Law - Legal Services for Southern People

Home / Latest News

What traits do you look for when you employ someone?

Friday, January 20, 2012 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

I have been on medication for high blood pressure since I had my eldest boy eleven years ago.

I lost weight - still have it.

I exercise - still have it.

Tried boxing as a form of anger management - still have it.

Gave up smoking - still have it.

So must be my lifestyle - New Year’s resolution (may assist employers out there who also have high blood pressure):

1. Must be more tolerant. My mother has told me since I was young that I am intolerant - presumably this makes me lack patience.

Read More »
Recording Secretly - is it ok?

Friday, December 30, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

The recent political tea-pot tape saga has sparked a national debate on whether or not it is illegal to secretly record conversations. Often employment clients ask if it is “legal” to record conversations with their employer or employee without their knowledge.

It is not unlawful for a person to tape record a conversation as long as one participant to the conversation is aware of the recording.

This does not necessarily mean however that that recording could be used at a Hearing in the Employment Relations Authority.

There are a number of other factors that need to be considered.

Read More »
Can a Trial Period be followed by a Probationary Period?

Friday, December 23, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule
Recent discussion in my office has centred on whether a trial period as governed by the Employment Relations Act 2000 (“the Act”) can be followed by a probationary arrangement (yes we are geeks!)

The relatively new provision for trial periods is set out under s.67A of the Act. This has very clear requirements to be met for it to be used in an employment relationship. These are:
- It must start at the very beginning of the employee’s employment;
- The employee must not have been employed by the employer previously;
- It is for a period of no more than 90 days.
- The employee can be dismissed during this period of time and no personal grievance for unjustified dismissal can be raised by the employee.
Read More »
Surviving Your Christmas Work Break Up

Friday, December 16, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

Seven Tips For Surviving Your Christmas Work Break Up Without Unjustifiably Dismissing Someone Or Resigning

One - if you are an employee and hate the boss don't go to the xmas party. If your partner hates the boss do not go to the xmas party. Whilst sober most of us are able to be civil - after 10 RTD's telling the boss what you really you think of them or your partner complaining about how little you are paid is not career enhancing - stay at home, and watch a DVD.

Read More »
Parental Leave Entitlements

Friday, December 09, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

When a woman gives birth or a person adopts a child, that person and/or their partner may be entitled to paid parental leave under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (the “PLEPA”).

Under the PLEPA an employee is entitled to the lesser of either:

1. $458.82 per week; or

2. Either the greater of: 100% of the employee’s ordinary weekly pay before the commencement of the parental leave; or 100% of the employee’s average weekly earnings.

For example, if you currently earn $372 per week, you will receive this amount from the Inland Revenue Department when on paid parental leave.

Read More »
The difference between a dismissal and a redundancy

Friday, December 02, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

A recent case in the Employment Relations Authority emphasises the importance of employers understanding the difference between a dismissal and a redundancy. It also reminds us of the conditions that must be met before a 90 day trial will take effect.

S was employed by a Queenstown pharmacy and was given the wrong employment agreement to begin with. After she had worked for a number of days she was given the correct employment agreement to sign (which contained a 90 day trial period). Subsequently, the business started to go downhill.

Read More »
Raising a Personal Grievance - Time is of the Essence

Sunday, November 27, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

One of the rules in Employment law is that a personal grievance must be raised within 90 days of the date on which the action amounting to the personal grievance arose or came to the notice of the employee – whichever is the later. If it not raised on time the Employment Relations Authority have to decide if the grievance can proceed.

A recent Auckland Employment Relations Authority decision considered the point of when a personal grievance is raised.

Ms H’s employment was verbally terminated by the employer on 22 April 2011. However Ms H did not lodge her statement of problem with the Authority until 5 August 2011 (some 105 days later).

The employer said this was the first time it became aware of Ms H’s grievance and therefore the grievance was out of time.

Read More »
Honesty or Collusion?

Friday, November 18, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

A recent case, partially determined in the Employment Relations Authority (“the ERA”) highlights the need for employers to be particularly vigilant when dismissing an employee. This is because not only does the employee’s “offending” behaviour have to warrant dismissal but a fair process must be followed.

On 15 June 2001, Ms M (“M”) and Ms R’s (“R”) employment with an Institute of Technology was terminated for serious misconduct. Their employer (B) claimed that they had failed to follow proper procedure when claiming expenses and that they had been dishonest when giving explanations about the expense claims.

A disciplinary meeting was held in relation to M regarding 3 suspicious expense claims. The expense claims appeared to have been falsified - as expenditure incurred by M had been claimed in R’s name and signed off by M. M claimed that the expense claims were a one-off mistake, this was later verified by R and accepted by B.

Read More »
Document, document, document

Friday, November 04, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

Mr Singh (Mr S), an Indian migrant, began working at the Plaza India restaurant in Masterton in May 2008. The owner was also a Mr Singh. Mr S’s employment agreement stated that he would receive $14.00 an hour for 40 hours work per week.

However Mr S ended up working everyday, lunch and dinner service, for nine months straight. The only day that he had off during this period was Christmas day. On top of this he was only ever paid $50.00 to $100.00 per week out of the till. He knew that he was being underpaid and working more than hours than he should have been, and he asked for his correct wages on countless occasions.

Read More »
The Importance of Consulting Employees When Restructuring

Friday, October 28, 2011 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

The importance of consulting your employees during restructuring has again been highlighted by a recent decision of the Employment Relations Authority.

Mr M had worked as a Records Officer in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for 20 years. Prior to the elections in 2008, Ministerial Services advised Mr M that there was a possibility, if the result of the elections was a change in government, his position could be affected by any restructuring that the new government intended to do.

Within days of coming to power, the National government gave notice of its intention to restructure the Mail and Records department, moving to multi-skilled teams. Mr M was notified of this intention.

Read More »

INVERCARGILL 03 211 0080

QUEENSTOWN 03 450 0000

WYNDHAM 03 206 2003

TE ANAU 03 249 8989

PROUD TO SUPPORT