An employer who dismissed an employee for failing to disclose a medical condition that could have affected his employment was held to have good grounds for terminating the employee’s employment.

The starting-out wage will give employers a real incentive to give young people a foothold on the employment ladder. Three groups will be eligible for the starting-out wage.

An employee must raise a personal grievance with his or her employer within the period of 90 days from the date on which the action alleged to amount to a personal grievance occurred or came to the notice of the employee, whichever is the later, unless the employer consents to the personal grievance being raised after the expiration of that period (Employment Relations Act 2000, section 114).

There have recently been two pre-employment ‘trial’ trial period cases before the Authority, which seem to have had conflicting determinations made.  Yet again, more questions have been raised regarding the interpretation of the 90 day trial period legislation, section 67A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

It is worth remembering that an employer who defends a claim of unjustified dismissal by arguing the dismissal was justified because the employee’s position had become redundant cannot then claim that any award for unjustified dismissal should be reduced for contributory conduct by the employee.

Posted on: Mar 15, 2013 Question: We have an employee who is taking maternity leave and her final date of employment is within two weeks of the first of the Easter statutory holidays. The employee has either taken accrued holidays or will be paid out her entitlement when she leaves.  Are we obligated to pay her any of the Easter statutory holidays, given she is leaving our employment very close to the Easter break? Answer: Because the employee’s employment is

From time to time we come across a situation where one party to a settlement agreement fails to sign the agreement in writing, and/or tries to change the terms after an agreement has been reached.  When this happens, we’re often asked whether or not the verbal agreement is binding and enforceable.  Well in the case of Nand v Richmond NZ Trust Limited [2012] NZERA Auckland 384, the Authority Member examined this very situation.

Arguments can arise between an employer and employee over who owns property (intellectual or physical) developed by the employee. In Empress Abalone Ltd v Langdon [2000] 2 ERNZ 53 (CA), the Court of Appeal considered whether an invention was made in the course of employment and therefore owned by the employer. The employer in that case asserted that, because Mr Langdon had been employed to conduct research, all research Mr Langdon conducted had therefore to fall within the ambit of his employment and be the property of the employer. The Court disagreed. At [8] Keith J said:

When an employee works variable hours, there are many implications an employer needs to take into consideration.  Some of the most common implications are summarised in the article below.

Question: Is it legal for an employee under a individual employment agreement to work variable hours per week?