Search Employment Law

Urgent employer guidance for situations where dismissal or suspension is being considered and an immediate decision could create a personal grievance or destroy useful evidence.

What a fair workplace investigation looks like in New Zealand: clear allegations, relevant evidence, impartial fact-finding, disclosure, a meaningful response opportunity and rational conclusions.

A first-response framework for New Zealand employers who receive a personal grievance: preserve evidence, identify the allegations, assess procedural and substantive risk, and choose a mediation or defence strategy.

When workplace suspension is justified, the consultation and contractual issues employers should consider, and how an unnecessary or unfair suspension can become a separate unjustified-disadvantage grievance.

Menzies v Corrigan concerned an ERA compliance order that required a company director personally to take steps to fund a liquidated employer so grievance remedies could be paid. The challenge raised questions about s 137(2), separate corporate personality and the reach of compliance jurisdiction.

Constructive dismissal claims arise when an employee resigns because of sufficiently serious employer conduct. This guide explains the legal tests, evidence to preserve, and why resigning too quickly can weaken a good case.

Mr Menzies sought to challenge an ERA compliance outcome arising from remedies originally ordered against a company that later entered liquidation. The background raised disputed accounting, disclosure, separate-legal-personality and recovery issues, but the challenge itself was filed substantially out of time.

What employment advocates actually do for employees and employers in mediation, ERA investigations and Employment Court litigation, including case assessment, evidence, negotiation and representation.