Health & Safety Reform Bill delay:

The proposed law changes to workplace health and safety have been delayed for at least two months because of concerns within the National Party caucus about its effect on small businesses and farmers.

The main areas being reconsidered are believed to be:

• Exemptions for businesses with 20 staff or less from the requirement to have health and safety representative on a worker’s request.
• Whether types of businesses can be deemed exempt from the law at any time by regulation, as the bill allows.

Parental Leave and Employment Protection – Rate of Parental Leave Payment

These adjustments to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (the Act) come into force on 1 July 2015

The rate of parental leave payment payable to an employee is the lesser of —

• $504.10 per week (as from 1 July 2014); and
• the greater of — 100% of the employee’s ordinary weekly pay before the commencement of the parental leave; and 100% of the employee’s average weekly earnings.

The rate of parental leave payment payable to a self-employed person is the lesser of —

• $504.10 per week (as from 1 July 2014); and
• the greater of — 100% of the self-employed person’s average weekly earnings; and the minimum amount set under section 71OA of the Act.

The amount of $504.10 per week must be adjusted by 1 July 2015 by any percentage movement upwards in average ordinary time weekly earnings. These regulations adjust the amount to $516.85.

Vulnerable Children – Requirements for Safety Checks of Children’s Workers

These regulations, which come into force on 1 July 2015, are made under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 and set out the requirements for safety checks of children’s workers.

The requirements for the first safety check of a children’s worker are:

• a full identity check (which requires confirmation of identity either by using an electronic credential or by producing a primary and secondary identity document); and
• a Police vet; and
• the gathering of other information (less information is required to be gathered if the children’s worker is an existing employee or contractor); and
• a risk assessment.

The requirements for a subsequent safety check of a children’s worker that is carried out within 3 years after a previous safety check are:

• an identity check (which, if a person’s name differs from that on a primary or secondary document produced to confirm identity for a first safety check, requires a supporting name change document to be produced); and
• a Police vet; and
• the seeking of information from any relevant professional organisation or licensing or registration authority; and
• a risk assessment.

Source: Westlaw NZ/Brookers online

From Chapman Employment Relations latest newsletter:

The Human Rights Tribunal’s decision that NZCU Bayside breached the privacy of their previous employee Karen Hammond was not a surprise. The level of compensation however was staggering. The awarding of $168k compensation, surpassed the previous highest award by an astonishing $128k.

The company admitted to the breach, but their actions were extraordinary. Hammond had posted on her Facebook page a photo of a cake she had baked, iced with the words ‘NZCU F*** YOU’. Only people she had accepted as ‘Facebook friends’ could access the page. NZCU Bayside obtained through coercion, a screen shot of the photo and emailed it to four local recruitment agencies, along with contemporaneous phone calls warning against employing Hammond.

Additionally, the Chief Executive sent an email to staff disclosing information about Hammond. The company also placed severe pressure on Hammond’s new employer to terminate her employment, including stating that continuing to employ her would result in significant financial loss.

Hammond resigned from her new job on the basis it had become untenable for the company to continue with her there. She remained unemployed for 10 months until obtaining a position outside her chosen sector, and in a position considerably below her skill level. Hammond felt unable to apply for any positions that used recruitment agencies for fear of what they would say to prospective employers.

The tribunal determined the company was less than honest in their evidence. The evidence of two of their key witnesses was described as being defensive and in disarray, and the consequences of the breach downplayed by the company. Members of the management team also contradicted each other. In contrast the tribunal found Hammond and her witnesses to ‘be sincere and genuine individuals and their evidence unrehearsed, direct and frank.’ Although the Chief Executive did provide an apology, the tribunal said the apology was ‘delivered without any detectable note of sincerity.’

All of these factors were taken into account when the tribunal considered remedies. The award was made up of $38,350 in lost income, just over $15,500 for legal expenses, $16,177 for the difference in wages from the job she was forced to resign from and her new job, and $98,000 damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. The tribunal described the breach as at the serious end of the spectrum, with the company’s responses at the hearing as contributing, and hence justifying the large damages award.