Employment relations: Current landscape and legislative developments

Economic stress is showing signs of plateau with no further rise in employment in this quarter. Employers will welcome the introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Act which is aimed at providing more flexibility in the labour market. Less significant amendments to allow employees to discuss their remuneration openly without fear of retribution and to deduct pay from employees for partial strikes are currently before parliament. Meanwhile the Authority has dismissed a claim for unjustified dismissal following the sale of a mussel business recognising that it is not always practical for employers to consult with employees about the sale of a business before it occurs where doing so would cause unreasonable prejudice to the employer's position.

What’s changing

• Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The Bill has been introduced to Parliament and gives effect to a number of changes previously announced by the Government including introducing a new gateway test for contractors, removing remedies for employees whose behaviour amounts to serious misconduct, introducing an income threshold of $180,000 for personal grievances and removing the 30 day rule for new employees whose work is covered by a collective agreement. We will release a more comprehensive update in the next few days. Read the release
• Parental leave. The maximum weekly rate of paid parental leave will increase from $754.87 to $788.66 per week from 1 July. Read the release
• Ability to discuss Remuneration. The Education and Workforce Committee's report on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill was presented to the House on 20 May 2025. The Bill, if passed, would protection to employees who discuss or disclose their remuneration to others by adding new ground for personal grievances under s 103 ERA would be for "adverse conduct for a remuneration disclosure reason". The Bill aims to increase transparency about pay and allow any pay discrimination to be more easily identified and remedied. Read the report
• Pay deductions for partial strikes. The Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House for its second reading. The Bill, if passed, would give employers the ability to deduct employees' pay in response to partial strikes. Currently employers' options are to take no action or to fully suspend or lockout the employees and deduct their full pay for that period. The new law would, instead, allow employers to give the partially striking employees notice of the pay deductions it proposes to make for the partial strike. Read the bill

What’s interesting

• Brooke van Velden shifts WorkSafe's focus from enforcement to advice. Read more
• No Jobseekers benefit if your parents can pay: Eligibility limits for 18-and 19-year-olds. Read more
• Budget 2025: Half-billion-dollar boost for film industry. Read more

Case highlights

Duty Manager entitled to pay for 40 hours per week

Mr Dawson was employed as an acting duty manager in a bar and restaurant owned and operated by Happy Belly Production Limited. His employment agreement stated that he was "a full time employee who agreed to work a minimum of 40 hours per week". Mr Dawson claimed the company failed to provide him with 40 hours' work and it was therefore required to pay him for the unpaid hours up to 40 per week. The Employment Court agreed with the Employment Relations Authority's interpretation of Mr Dawson's employment agreement and it held that his employment agreement required that the company roster him for a minimum of 40 hours per week, and he was entitled to be paid for those hours. Read the case. In the media.

Employer justified in not consulting with staff about the sale of its mussel business

The former employees of Kono NZ LP claimed their dismissals following the sale of the employer's mussel business and assets to Talley's Limited was unjustified because the employer did not consult with them before the sale. The employees argued that the employer was obliged to consult with them before the sale due to their duty of good faith. The Authority held that, in this case, consultation would have caused unreasonable prejudice to Kono's commercial position (so the exception to consultation under section 4(1B)(c) of the Employment Relations Act applied). Consultation was also not practical, and therefore not required under the terms of the collective agreement, due to the commercial sensitivities of the transaction. Read the case. In the media.

‍