Serious misconduct is not just a label. Post-21 Feb 2026 it can zero out remedies. Here is a practical advocate framework to classify conduct as serious misconduct (or not) and to run the right process arguments.
Employment Law
We represent employers and employees in employment disputes in New Zealand. All employees have rights under the Employment Relations Act 2000. This blog discusses common and relevant issues in New Zealand employment law.
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Browse topics
Browse articles
The 2026 amendments can strip out compensation, reinstatement, or even all remedies once an employee is found to have contributed to the situation. If the Employment Court treated trial periods strictly because they remove protections, expect the same disciplined approach to these new contribution gatekeepers.
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.
A short practical warning about section 149 settlement agreements: if the mediator sign-off is mandatory, the clauses must actually align. In this YouTube Short I anonymise the parties and focus on the s 149 process and a clause conflict that turned into a firefight at the ERA.
ERA trial period case where an unexpected cellphone incident ("Masturbation!") at the investigation meeting collided with a serious legal issue: whether the Authority dealt with the argument that the 90-day trial notice was invalid under s 67B(1).
Concerns about a prize draw incentive linked to Google reviews, and why incentivized reviews can breach Google's policy and mislead consumers in New Zealand.
Public court list information confirms an Employment Court judicial review hearing in Menzies v Employment Relations Authority and Another on 10 February 2026.
Catherine Stewart Barrister (and her firm) are central to the email excerpts now being discussed publicly in connection with the Menzies v Corrigan dispute. Daniel Church later (unjustifiably) posted "Buyer Beware" on LinkedIn about Lawrence Anderson and employment advocacy. This article provides context, links the primary sources, and sets out the specific email excerpts being cited.
