Correction issue and public-interest context
The underlying email referred to the Employers and Manufacturers Association and NZBA, being the New Zealand Business Association, in the context of possible intervention. It was not sent to EMA or the New Zealand Business Association. LawNews and RNZ appear to have reported NZBA as a reference to the New Zealand Bar Association. That is wrong. The Employment Court judgment says only "EMA and NZBA", and the direct email to NZBA was sent to contact@nzba.org, the New Zealand Business Association contact address. Read the LawNews article. Read the RNZ item. Read the Employment Court judgment. See the NZBA contact page.
The language was blunt. That is obvious. Nothing in this article accepts the accuracy, fairness, or context of the wider reporting about me. But the reported language should not become a substitute for the real issue. The point was not a random insult. The point was that there was a live Employment Court case raising wider employer-side and public-interest issues, and organisations that publicly present themselves as serious voices in this field did not appear willing to step in, or even to discuss the issue with us.
That matters now because EMA is publicly lobbying about the employment dispute system and employment advocates. If EMA wants to be treated as a serious employer-side voice on employment dispute reform, it is fair to ask what it did when there was an actual live case involving broader employer-side principle.
It is noted that Mr Menzies' current employment advocate and I are both pleased that previous counsel for Mr Corrigan are no longer involved. In my view, EMA's lack of practical engagement demonstrated the limits of its contribution to the employer-side issues arising in this case.
Correction issue: NZBA was the New Zealand Business Association, not the New Zealand Bar Association
A correction point should be made at the outset. The Employment Court judgment records the wording as "EMA and NZBA". It does not say "New Zealand Bar Association".
The relevant email was sent to contact@nzba.org. That is the contact email for the New Zealand Business Association. The reference was not to the New Zealand Bar Association.
That matters because the public reporting changes the target and context of the comment. The point being made was about employer-side and business-side organisations potentially assisting with a case that raised wider employer, company-director, and jurisdictional issues. It was not a request directed to the New Zealand Bar Association.
For clarity, the blunt wording was not sent to EMA or the New Zealand Business Association. It was used in correspondence with a third party. My direct email to the New Zealand Business Association invited intervention and did not contain that wording.
That distinction matters. Reporting that I referred to EMA and NZBA in blunt terms is one thing. Suggesting that I directed that language to the New Zealand Bar Association, or even to NZBA itself, is another. The direct email to contact@nzba.org was a request that the New Zealand Business Association consider intervention. It did not contain the "pull finger" wording.
EMA publicly sells itself as an employer-side specialist
EMA is entitled to advocate for employers. That is what it does. Its own website says it works for employers only, offers member-only rates, is New Zealand's largest employment relations specialist, and provides employment relations support through lawyers, advisers and consultants. Read EMA's employment relations services page.
EMA also says it can provide mediation, representation, advice and resources, and that its legal team can represent businesses during investigations and mediations, or in front of the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court. Read EMA's legal team page.
That public positioning is important. EMA is not some neutral academic body standing outside the dispute system. It is a participant in the employment relations market. It sells employer-side services. It publicly advocates for employers. It now wants MBIE and the Government to listen to it on regulation of employment advocates.
What Menzies v Corrigan was really about
Menzies v Corrigan was not just a personal dispute about costs or tone. It raised difficult issues about the employment jurisdiction, compliance powers, separate legal personality, personal exposure of a company director, liquidation, disclosure, and the practical effect of onerous stay conditions.
The background is explained in my earlier article on Employment Court procedure and representative competence. Read the Menzies v Corrigan procedure article.
In simple terms, the case involved a small business company, a liquidation context, Authority orders, compliance steps, and then Employment Court issues about whether the individual behind the company could be required to take steps connected to company liability. There were also serious questions about procedure, natural justice, stay conditions, and how compliance or sanctions issues should properly be brought before the Court.
The non-party discovery issue also had a real procedural context. Mr Menzies wanted to obtain the relevant emails and documents, or confirmation that all documents had been passed through to the Authority. The issue arose after documents had been directed or expected to be provided in the Authority process, but the full pathway of those documents was not clear from Mr Menzies' perspective. The application for non-party discovery against Ms Stewart arose because a request for confirmation or documents was not answered.
Mr Menzies later discontinued the challenge because the stay conditions required a substantial payment into the Employment Court registry and further payment to Mr Corrigan. For a small business director, a stay that depends on paying almost $40,000 can make the challenge practically impossible, even where serious issues exist.
Those were not just private issues. They had broader significance for employers, small businesses, company directors, and anyone concerned about the boundaries of the employment jurisdiction. If an employer organisation is going to speak loudly about the employment dispute system, those are exactly the types of issues it should be interested in.
The issue was intervention, not manners
The comment was about intervention. It referred to whether EMA and the New Zealand Business Association would intervene, or at least seriously consider doing so, in a case raising wider issues. It was a blunt reference made in correspondence with a third party; it was not the wording used in my direct email to the New Zealand Business Association.
I am not saying EMA or the New Zealand Business Association had a legal duty to intervene. They did not. No private organisation has a general duty to step into someone else's Employment Court case.
But EMA's choice is still relevant. EMA wants to lobby loudly when the target is employee advocates. Yet when a live Employment Court case raised real employer-side issues about separate legal personality, compliance powers, personal exposure of directors, disclosure, and onerous stay conditions, EMA did not appear willing to help.
That is the difference between public lobbying and practical public-interest advocacy.
Why this matters to the current debate
EMA's current public campaign complains about employment advocates, no-win-no-fee representation, settlement pressure, costs, delay, and the supposed distortion of the dispute system. It says the system needs reform and that unregulated advocates are a logical place to start.
That position should be tested against EMA's own conduct and incentives. EMA is not just commenting from the sidelines. It is an employer-side organisation in the same market. It provides advice, legal services, mediation, representation, templates, training and lobbying for employers.
If EMA wants to use public debate to attack employee advocates, it is fair to ask whether EMA is also prepared to assist when a hard, technical, live case raises issues that genuinely matter to employers. In Menzies v Corrigan, from my perspective, the practical answer appeared to be no.
That does not mean EMA can never comment. It can. It also does not mean EMA is wrong about every complaint it makes. But it does mean EMA's role should be understood properly. EMA appears more willing to lobby against employment advocates as a class than to assist in a difficult Employment Court case where employer-side principle was actually engaged.
The blunt point
EMA wants to be loud when the target is employee advocates. But when a live Employment Court case raised real employer-side issues about separate legal personality, compliance powers, personal exposure of directors, disclosure, and onerous stay conditions, EMA did not appear willing to help.
It was not legally required to intervene. But its silence is relevant. It shows the difference between public lobbying and practical public-interest advocacy.
If EMA says the employment dispute system is unfair to employers, then it is fair to ask where the practical support was when a small business director faced serious procedural and jurisdictional issues in the Employment Court.
Related commentary
- Poor accounting in the ERA: Menzies v Corrigan and the liquidator disclosure problem
- Employment Court procedure: the problem is employment lawyer representative incompetence, not just advocates
- EMA's complaints about employment advocates are not a serious case for regulation
- Regulation of employment advocates: what the NZLS report found and why it matters
- Rebuttal to RNZ interview with Graeme Colgan
