Employment advocates represent both employers and employees in mediation, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. Competence, transparency, case strategy, and client choice matter more than titles.
Articles about employment law, employment lawyers and advocates and the industry of employment dispute resolution.
If you are dealing with an employment dispute (dismissal, disciplinary issues, performance management, bullying, wage arrears, holidays, or a threatened Personal Grievance (PG)), getting the right representation early can be the difference between a clean resolution and months of risk, cost, and damage.
In New Zealand, people often search for an "employment lawyer" when what they really need is strong employment law representation. That can be a lawyer, an employment advocate, a union, an employer association, or self-representation. What matters is competence, strategy, and process.
Before you hire any employment lawyer or advocate, ask the questions that actually protect you:
If you are an employer, employment law advice is not just "can we fire them" - it is risk control. The correct approach is to build defensible process, preserve evidence, and make decisions that meet the section 103A test of justification.
If you are an employee, the usual starting point is raising a Personal Grievance (PG) within the time limits and preserving evidence. The real work is building a coherent factual timeline, identifying the legal issues, and choosing the right path (negotiation, mediation, ERA).
Employment advocates represent both employers and employees in mediation, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. Competence, transparency, case strategy, and client choice matter more than titles.
Public commentary about Lawrence Anderson, Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks, and Menzies v Corrigan has left out important context. This article sets out what is accepted, what is disputed, and why the Joyce, Menzies, NZBA, liquidator disclosure, and accounting issues matter.
The underlying email referred to EMA and the New Zealand Business Association in the context of possible intervention. LawNews and RNZ have incorrectly reported NZBA as the New Zealand Bar Association. There were no rude words sent to either organisation by us. I say the reporting is inaccurate, unfair, and missing important context.
EMA says employment advocates are delaying and distorting employment disputes, making employment harder, and contributing to personal grievance imbalance. But the wider anti-advocate argument is inconsistent, and the NZLS-commissioned independent review did not identify widespread consumer harm justifying lawyer-style regulation of non-lawyer providers. The better answer is realistic offers, proper Calderbanks, proper disclosure, lawful treatment of advocate costs, better mediation resourcing, and existing conduct and costs powers used fairly across all representatives.
MBIE is asking for feedback on the employment dispute system. The Employment Court stage shows the real problem is not simply employment advocates. It is employment lawyer representatives who do not understand procedure, file weak interlocutory applications, and create cost and delay.
A practical guide to the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 (assented 20 Feb 2026, in force 21 Feb 2026): contractor gateway test, new $200k remuneration threshold, changes to s 103A, stronger contribution and serious misconduct remedy limits, and 30-day collective agreement changes.
There is no case for new regulation of employment advocates. The report, Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand did not identify widespread consumer harm justifying new regulation of non-lawyer legal service providers. MBIE should not create licensing, registration, compulsory membership, a statutory code, a new regulator, or a new complaints body without independent evidence of widespread advocate-specific harm.
Parties can agree that an advocate is paid directly by the employer in terms of an s 149 record of settlement. "Payment" excludes legal or advocacy services where such service is a separate term of the settlement and a GST invoice for a defined sum is provided to the other party.