Welcome to our blog page! Grab a cuppa and review our first blog posts. We are publishing new posts periodically which cover various ER and people management topics.

Would you like to recommend or request a topic? If you would like to see a blog on a particular topic, email us at Enquiries@erresolutions.co.nz and let us know. The chances are if its a topic of interest to you, there are others who would also be interested to see it covered.

The large retailer Smith City recently lost a case in the Employment Court, which has been widely reported in the media.

The issue was whether or not employees had to be paid at least the minimum wage for 15 minute ‘optional’ meetings before the start of their shift.

The Court said that these meetings were ‘work’ because there was an expectation communicated by managers that employees who cared about their jobs attended them. It didn’t matter that employees were not contractually required to attend, that some employees didn’t attend from time to time or that the meetings were informal.

It followed then that all employees need to be paid at least the minimum wage for the time spent attending these meetings.

The Court also said employees must receive at least the minimum wage for time spent attending these meetings regardless of what else they got paid during the pay period.

Previously it had been a fairly standard practice for many employers to make sure they paid at least the minimum wage on average for all hours worked within a pay period (e.g. a fortnight). Interestingly the Labour Inspector who brought the Smith City case to the Courts originally seemed to think this was an OK practice. They only brought the case for those employees being paid ‘at or near’ the minimum wage – presumably because they thought employees whose hourly rate worked out higher than the minimum wage on average for all the hours worked including the 15 minute meetings, were being paid acceptably. The Court disagreed.

In practice this approach almost certainly also means the employees should have been paid at their contractual hourly pay rate for these units of time, where their hourly pay rate was higher than minimum wage. That point wasn’t part of the case the Court was considering.

Smith City has 3 months to comply with the decision and will have to pay backpay to all affected staff who haven’t been paid to attend these meetings for the past 6 years.

This case has significant implications for employers who operate any of the following practices, which until now have been quite common particularly within retail, hospitality and construction:

·        An expectation, contractual or otherwise, that employees attend work earlier than their paid shift start time to ‘prepare’.

·        An expectation that employees cash up, clean up, or continue serving a customer after their paid shift ends.

·        Any form of meeting that employees are expected (or encouraged) to attend outside of their paid working hours.

·        Any form of requirement for employees to rectify work errors in their own time.

·        A requirement to attend unpaid work-based training or potentially any requirement to undertake other activities to meet accreditation requirements for their job.

·        A flexible approach where employees may work more than their paid hours one day and be allowed to leave early or take a longer lunch break on another day without this being specifically recorded in their wage and time records.

As always there are a range of options available to employers to respond to this issue. Whether or not the example situations above are definitely a problem will depend on a range of factors including what is contained in the employment agreement. Contact us for further information or advice.

With a new government now in place and finding its feet, many employers are asking what’s likely to change for them in the near future.

 Labour have always been closely affiliated with the trade unions movement, and making changes to our current employment law framework in favour of greater rights for employees and trade unions are some of the issues they campaigned on. They have advised we can expect legislation providing for ‘fairer workplaces’ as well as an increased minimum wage ($16.50 per hour) from 1 April 2018. Longer term there is a commitment to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour by 2021. This is huge increase of nearly 27% over 4 years, against a background of the minimum wage moving annually by around 3-3.5% in recent years.

We don’t currently have details of what ‘fairer workplaces’ will look like, but Labour have had a longstanding commitment to ending 90 day trial periods and introducing industry wide collective bargaining in their workplace policy. Our view is it’s very likely that these policies will feature in the ‘fairer workplaces’ changes, at least to some degree.

Interesting times are ahead. While this might not sound like amazing news for employers, forewarned is forearmed, and those businesses that adapt quickly to changes can find this creates an advantage for them over their slower acting competitors.

Watch this space for further information as it becomes available. We are always very happy to chat to employers wanting to get ahead of the changes. We would recommend reviewing current pay, recruitment and induction arrangements now, which will enable employers to begin thinking about options that might work for them going forward.

As a customer I have always believed in giving feedback be it negative (but constructive) or positive where and when appropriate. I don't know the exact ratio of negative to positive but I'm pretty sure that the positives come out higher.

Something happened recently however that got me thinking about how employers handle this feedback. I was in a large store looking for a specialist product for a very specific purpose. This had to work first time, or I would be faced with a lot of rework and a bigger job the second time around. I explained the situation to one of the staff who gave his initial opinion, but then said that to make sure he was right did I mind if he checked with another staff member? Far from minding I was both impressed and appreciative. The second staff member agreed but then said do you mind if I check with the supplier to make sure that the product will dry properly in the situation that you have described. I have two staff who have been prepared to admit that they aren't 100% sure and asking whether I mind if they check! The supplier said yes it will be OK so I bought what had been recommended.

When I got home I rang the store and talked to the manager. His initial reaction was to say that it made his day for someone to ring with some positive feedback. He said that a note would go on their file, he would tell them personally, and they had a policy of giving staff a coffee voucher as a small reward. This sort of approach will encourage staff to carry on with that type of positive behaviour, and this would hopefully be reflected in the culture of the organisation. Looking at it from a business perspective I would hazard a guess that it won’t do any harm to customer retention / return business either.

I compared this to when I mentioned to a garage owner that I appreciated the fact that his workshop manager had kept me up to date time wise one day when they were struggling to get some parts. This was face to face and he simply grunted and walked away. I doubt very much if the feedback was passed on - I suspect however that negative feedback would have been passed on in a flash.

Saying thank you doesn't cost anything, passing on positive feedback to your staff doesn't cost anything, but the negative impacts of not doing so are likely to cost you both in terms of staff effort and the subsequent impact on customers.                                         

Food for thought ........... and no I don't go to that particular garage any longer.

Tony Stone

A question came up recently about the pros and cons of using recruitment agencies to recruit for vacancies.  There appears to have been a major increase in the use of recruitment agencies, and there are some excellent ones out there.  An example of this would be in the construction industry where there is a significant shortage of tradespeople, and a recruitment agency can help both in terms of advertising in a wide number of places, and in saving the employer time in checking things such as qualifications. Because good recruitment agencies maintain relationships with good candidates and potential candidates, they can also pro-actively headhunt suitable people for a role, rather than just relying on people responding to an advert. This can be invaluable where a unique skill set is required, or the calibre of people responding to an advert is just not at the level required.

I am also aware of a Human Resources Manager who used a recruitment agency because he was aware that the organisation was in a sector which would put people off applying.  The recruitment agency was able to advertise “blind” and talk to people about the role, explaining the benefits of working for that organisation and then thinking about the sector in that context.

Having said that, using a recruitment agency comes at a cost, and it’s not always necessary. ER Resolutions can assist employers who wish to conduct their own recruitment internally – reviewing your job requirements, writing a good advert and clear job description, acting as a sounding board, providing a second opinion at interview stage, completing background checks and putting induction plans together are all services employers choose to use us for, to ensure they get the right people and identify any potential problems. With the likely ending of the 90 day trial period next year, it’s never been more important to get this right, to avoid the cost and disruption of making bad hiring decisions.

Tony Stone

Diversity has been a growing focus for larger employers and the public sector over the past few years. Whilst some of the legal framework promoting equal opportunities and banning discriminatory work practices has been in place for over 40 years, many aspects such as equal pay for work of equal value are really only getting tested in the courts now.

Significant developments are on the horizon. 25% of New Zealand workers are over 55, we are experiencing record levels of migration, particularly from Asia, and litigation on equal pay for work of equal value is likely to result in legal changes assisting pay comparisons to be made between female dominated and male dominated jobs.

But is this something employers in the SME market need to start thinking about?

The short answer, in my opinion at least, is yes. Aside from the litigation risk of not keeping up to speed with legal developments in this area, there are actually some really positive reasons for all employers, including SMEs, to make sure they are thinking about this significant trend. Here are my top three:

1. Skills shortages are the most common complaint I hear from working with employers. Good people are hard to find, and when you do find them, you need to be able to attract and retain them in your business. With ever growing diversity in New Zealand, employers who are able to attract and retain skilled and motivated workers across a wide range of demographic profiles hold a competitive advantage as they are able to access and utilise a much larger pool of talent.

2. Connecting with your customers is easiest when they readily identify with your business and the people associated with it, and your people understand and connect with them. Businesses experience significant growth in customer attraction and retention when they can match the profile of the customers they are targeting with the people they employ.

3. Diversity of thought leads to more innovation, creativity, and more robust decision making within business. Having a diverse workforce, so long as you manage it in such a way that everyone is encouraged to have a voice, helps you to explore new ideas, challenge them in a robust way, and use a broad range of experience to implement them effectively.

Being able to attract and retain a diverse and talented workforce does require good management practices and a culture of valuing different perspectives and experiences. It may require some awareness of cultures and work practices that may be different to what you are used to. It may also require some consideration of how to lead your existing people, particularly your managers and longer serving employees, into working effectively in a new, more diverse environment. A growing number of businesses in New Zealand however are recognising that the benefits of embracing the changing face of the New Zealand workforce more than justify any initial upskilling required in order for this to work for them.

Get in touch for more information about managing a diverse workforce, effective management practices, or legal obligations around diversity and equal opportunities.