Employment Law: An Insider's Perspective with Gerard Elwell

Ever found yourself navigating the murky waters of employment law? Now, imagine doing it with a background far removed from the traditional legal track - that's the story of our guest, Gerard. Straight out of Auckland and the world of hospitality, Gerard shares his unconventional journey to becoming an Employment Law Specialist. Strap in for tales of challenge, resilience, and non-traditional routes to law school.

The legal world isn't all courtrooms and case studies, though. Join us as Gerard offers unique insights into the employer-employee dynamic in today's uncertain economic climate. From preventative measures to avoid disputes to the importance of record keeping, Gerard uses his rich background to offer a fresh perspective on employment law. And if you've ever wondered about the common mistakes employers make in this field, you're in for a treat.

But we're not stopping there. Brace yourself for a deep dive into the complexities of the Employment Contracts Act, its implications on the unionised workforce in New Zealand, and its potential impacts on wages and benefits. We also explore the cutting-edge Fair Pay Agreements, and how they are setting the bar for industry standards. This isn't just a conversation about employment law, it's a look at how government, employers, and unions can pave the way for better working conditions. It's time to challenge the norms and break new ground. So, tune in and let's get this conversation started.

Hear how some of Australasia's most interesting and successful people are utilising People, Technology and Processes to live a productive life.

For more information on Lee Stevens visit www.leestevens.co

Sponsored by workforcery.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to the Time and Motion podcast with me, your
host, lee Stevens.
For over 25 years, I've workedwith businesses all over the
world to improve the technologyand the people within them.
In this podcast, I share someof my experiences and I chat to
guests who generously sharetheir stories of how to or, in
some cases, how not to live aproductive life.
I hope you enjoy the show.

(00:28):
Before we start the show, Iwant to talk to you about
Workforcerycom.
Workforcery helps mid-sizedbusinesses to stay compliant and
legal with both labour andsafety laws in New Zealand and

(00:49):
Australia.
It completely removes allpaperwork, spreadsheets and
manual processes by providingone easy to use tool to capture
and store your employee data.
Using features like the JobOffer Wizard lets managers and
business owners generate andsign employment contracts online
within minutes.
It also allows candidates toprovide all the information you

(01:10):
need from them online using yourown tailored application and
new joiner forms, which you canthen integrate with your payroll
system.
You can also create, manage andassign tasks to ensure that
nothing is missed throughout theemployee life cycle.
If you want to know more, headover to Workforcerycom to book a
demo, and if you mention thetime and motion podcast, you'll

(01:30):
get your first month free.
Gerard, how are you?
Oh, great thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Lee, how are you?

Speaker 1 (01:37):
I'm good thanks.
Thanks for coming onto the show.
Oh, it's a pleasure.
Thanks for the invitation, noproblem, and you braved the main
streets of Christchurch to gethere to the BNZ.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Centre.
I did, I did.
I've come down from Aucklandthis week and I've come away
from tropical downpour well,noxotropical downpours, monsoon
downpours, and come to thelovely weather that we've got
down here.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Yeah, well, it's been a bit wet.
A bit wet in New Zealand,hasn't it this last few days?
Okay, so an employment lawspecialist?
Yes, yes, and yeah, we got youon the show to talk about all
things employment law.
But before we get into what youdo, let's just go back a little
bit.
So where did you grow up andwhat was your life like for you

(02:20):
and where was it?

Speaker 2 (02:20):
Yeah, so I was born in Auckland quite a while ago
now and spent most of my youngeryears there, although we did
live for a little while inEurope.
So I'm a son of an immigrantfather Dutch father and Kiwi
mother.
So we did spend a few years inEurope when I was young, but
most of my time spent inAuckland growing up and
schooling.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Okay, and what was your like when you were younger?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Oh, I think quite a quiet sort of guy.
I was an only child at the time.
My brother came along manyyears later so I pretty much my
parents were very busy working.
They were working inhospitality so they did really
long hours so yeah, I spent alot of time by myself.
So, yeah, probably quite aquiet, introverted young guy.

(03:08):
Did they have a restaurant or abar or something?
Yeah, they had a restaurant,start off as a cafe and then a
restaurant and yeah, the hoursjust seemed to be sort of all
the hours of the day and prettymuch all weeks of the year.
Absolutely Okay and universityyeah, so I actually dropped out
of school at 15 with no formalqualifications, so my pathway to

(03:30):
becoming a lawyer is probably alittle bit of an alternative
route from many, and I actuallyended up working in a law firm
as a junior at 15.
So that was sort of my firstfull time job.
I just needed to support myselfand worked as a junior doing
bits and pieces, filingdocuments in the high court and

(03:50):
organising stuff, and I sort ofgot a bit of a taste for it.
I thought, oh, this looks likea different sort of life from
what I was used to.
Yeah, my parents worked veryhard.
They never seemed to have muchmoney and here it was this sort
of glamorous impression of law,of partners and big offices and
flash cars.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
Now, what year would that have been?
I suppose you were given yourage there 15,.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
What year was that?

Speaker 1 (04:18):
This was 87, yeah, so there have been a few high
flying lawyer type programs onTV at the time.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
LA Law was big at the time.
Younger people probably havenever heard of it or come across
it, but there was LA Law.
That was sort of veryinfluential, I think, for young
people and it was also quite.
It was a share market boomprior to the crash and so there
was a lot of sort of moneysloshing around the economy.
With deregulation andbusinesses being sold and

(04:45):
foreign investment and things,so it was.
There were quite heady times ina way.
Post.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
Wall Street.
So the yuppie era from what weused to call it Very much, very
much yeah, and then came thecrash.
Okay, so you went in as ajunior in one of the bigger law
firms, was that?

Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yeah, it was quite a large firm.
They ended up being a nationalfirm, they merged and so it was
one of the larger firms, withoffices in Auckland and
Wellington.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Okay, yep, okay, and then what?

Speaker 2 (05:12):
I thought I didn't want to be limited by being
unqualified.
So I was really motivated totry and get into university.
But I didn't have any formalqualifications, so what I did
was I effectively studied nightschool and did a legal executive
qualification part time whilstworking, and then applied to
universities.
Auckland didn't want me,waikato didn't want me and Otago

(05:35):
accepted me, which I'm verygrateful for.
They had more of an open policyback then and, yeah, they
accepted me into quite a largefirst year.
And then the challenge isgetting from that first year to
the next year.
So I did a couple of years inthat law firm working and then
went off to Otago in 1990.

Speaker 1 (05:53):
Okay, and so did you finish university?

Speaker 2 (05:57):
No, no, I actually dropped out.
So yeah, again an unusual sortof slightly unconventional
pathway to becoming a lawyer,and hopefully my clients won't
hold that against me.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
But no, it's amazing as I say I've said this time and
time again like it just meansmaybe it's just indicative of
the population of New Zealand,but a lot of people, myself
included, didn't even go to uni,didn't finish uni or maybe went
back later in life and did it,which is obviously quite common
as well.
But I think it kind of says alot about commerce and business.

(06:30):
Really.
That actually is some hugesuccessful people that maybe
didn't go to even think of unior didn't finish uni.
Right, and for me I don't thinkit defined you right personally
.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
But no, no, and a lot of people achieve massive
things without without havingspent those four years or three
or four years, five years atuniversity.
None of my family been touniversity, so I was first in
family and it was a bit of anunfamiliar environment so I
struggled a bit.
I actually got into law schoolso I got through.
They have a.
They have a first year wherethey have about 600 students and

(07:00):
they take about 200.
So I got in and I thought, oh,that's it, I'm set now, and then
the second year.
I found I really struggled withthe second year and then and
then from there I just sort ofgot a bit lost and and left it
all together and did a varietyof other jobs before coming back
to law.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
So come on.
What would those other jobs inbetween?

Speaker 2 (07:19):
I was a painter a poor painter at that, a window
cleaner and OK at that, I guess.
I worked in tourism for a whileas a tour guide, did sports
coaching which for a sportstrust, as well as some private
sports coaching and ended upEventually going back to

(07:39):
university and getting a BAbecause I wanted to teach
overseas.
I wanted to teach Englishoverseas.
I thought that would be a goodopportunity to travel and
experience the world without toomuch pressure, so that was sort
of the motivator for gettingback and then spend a bit of
time teaching eventually taughtat university, which was sort of
that was sort of the pinnacleof anything I could have hoped

(08:00):
for at the time, having comefrom a family with no, no real
education and dropping out ofuniversity twice.
They actually dropped out twice, to be honest once it had to go
and once it all.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
So OK, so we just fill in in the gaps here.
So third time, by the soundsthat you gotta go.
You went back, and so did youhave to then go and start from
the beginning again and you haveto do the oddity was you able
to kind of pick up from whereyou left off?

Speaker 2 (08:25):
really, fortunate to get credited for the previous
study that I done.
Otherwise I probably wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
It just would have been too much of an undertaking
and what was the defining momentwhere you said, look, I had
enough of this, this deckingaround being a tour guide and
coach, etc.
I want to go back into law.
So was there like a triggermoment now?

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Yeah, I actually.
Although people often criticizelawyers, I know they're sort of
easy targets in some ways, buta lot of my life's been
motivated by gettingsatisfaction from helping people
and helping people to do thingsthat they might not be able to
do themselves, and the realcatalyst for getting back into
law was I helped a couple ofpeople with their employment law

(09:04):
issues so they weren't gettingpaid properly and getting poorly
treated at work, and I wentthrough the process with them in
mediation and I wasn't aqualified lawyer at that time
and I was actually able tosettle the case for them.
They were happy and I wasdealing with lawyers on the
other side and I thought, oh,this isn't as scary or as
impossible as I thought it mightbe, and perhaps I should sort

(09:26):
of take it a bit further.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
Okay, so that sense of duty to help others.
Like you say, there's probablythe trigger moment, and then was
able to go back and finish yourlaw degree.
So when was that?

Speaker 2 (09:40):
That was 2016.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
Okay, so reasonably recent, yeah, okay, and so how's
it been since then?

Speaker 2 (09:50):
It's been interesting .
So coming into law as a matureperson is not a neat fit
necessarily in terms of lawfirms and what they're looking
for In what way.
Well, they're very traditionalfor one and they very much look
for their very sort ofhierarchical so to fit in as a

(10:10):
new law grad.
They're generally looking forpeople that are pretty young,
who are prepared to be generaldogs, bodies, and I think
perhaps I was a little bitunrealistic with my expectations
.
I sort of thought, well, I'vegot all this life experience,
I've got a bit of managementexperience, I know how to deal
with people.
They'll really want me to comein and bring me in at an
intermediate or senior level.
But that certainly wasn't thecase and unlike Michelle who you

(10:33):
spoke to recently, who didn'tapply to any of the big law
firms, I did and got rejected byall of them.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
So so help me out on this one because, as I say, I
have done a bit of work withsome law firms in my consultancy
previous life and myunderstanding is that it's
actually over subscribed.
So we do all this Pushing ofour younger generations to go
and do law and be lawyers and Isuppose a lot of that from their
parents going, you know, comegoing to law, but it's actually

(10:59):
not that many roles availableright and so that those interns
roles might it's something like300 400 applicants per role.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yes, yeah, and some firms maybe five or 600.
So it there is a legitimateargument.
I think that New Zealandproduces far more law grads.
Then there are lawyer positionsand you see that in the
industry the industry's gotabout 13000 lawyers, but
probably, you know, within thedecade we would have 13000
graduates, probably around that.

(11:30):
And so it's not.
It's not a profession thatrequires a huge amount of the
intake.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
That so why do we keep pushing these, these, yeah,
so the younger generation intoroles which are hugely
oversubscribed, because if wedon't need that many lawyers and
things are I write again, I'mgoing to certainly impact that
as well so why do we keep on?
You know, pushing law as a as aviable career, when it's
actually, you know there's onlythe limited amount of positions.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
Yeah, it's an interesting one.
I think we're all influenced byour parents and they're
influenced by their parents andso, you know, in traditional
views of professions and you seethat quite a lot with migrant
cultures.
It's like be a doctor, youcan't be a doctor.
Be a lawyer, yeah, if you can'tbe lawyer, maybe an accountant
or maybe they're on a par.
I wouldn't want to be negativeabout accountancy, but yeah, and

(12:20):
I think and there's not a lotof sort of imagination beyond
that and that might be fromfamilies that that haven't been
to university they're not awareof of sort of some of the other
options, so they go for thoseclassic ones and I think it's a
law degree is great.
There's a huge amount of peopleout there that that have law
degrees that are really usingthat outside of being lawyers.
But I think the expectationsprobably a little bit

(12:44):
unrealistic.
When people go into law school,they all imagine they're going
to be lawyers and it's not thecase for most of them and even
the ones that get into thesefirms, there's quite a high
churn rate.
So you might find within two orthree years many of them have
left the profession or goneoverseas and some of them come
back but others don't.
So it's yeah, there are issuesaround that and I think

(13:05):
universities are very motivatedto bring in more students, which
brings in fees and that helpstheir status and their standing,
but they don't have any concernas to what happens at the other
end.
You know there's no guaranteegiven, so I think sometimes
there's a bit of a gap there.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
I imagine it's quite a bit like sociology and
psychology.
I would imagine it's probablyone of those degrees, though
that probably helps you out incommerce as well.
So there's a lot of people thatdo go into the corporate world
with the law degree, might notbe practicing, but it would
serve them really well, becausewhen they negotiate and contract
that kind of thing is thatfirst statement.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yes, yeah, I see a lot of people that I deal with
non lawyers that have lawdegrees and I think that, if
nothing else, it teaches youquite good critical thinking
skills and analytical skills and, of course, the reading and
research aspect that's that'snecessary to get through a law
degree, so it does teach somevaluable skills.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
Yeah, I actually think Ali McBeal's got a lot to
answer for as well.
If you're a child of theeighties and nineties like I was
, you know everyone used tothink it was all just singing
karaoke with dancing babies,right.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
And more recently, probably suits as well as also
representing to the reality ofbeing a lawyer.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
He's definitely portrayed as this kind of high
powered, you know, super slickkind of.
You know there's alwayssomething exciting, was exciting
case going on and I suppose thereality is, as we're about to
talk about, is probably a littlebit different, I'm guessing.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, there are a lot of interesting stories that
happen, especially in the,depending on the area of law
that you're in.
So I'm an employment which isrelationship based, so when
relationships go wrong you doget some interesting stories and
events criminal, family andthey all produce sort of what we
call war Stories interestingwar stories.
But probably the reality ofbeing a lawyer is you a lot of
it is admin, client managementthings.

(14:56):
They don't really teach you somuch in law school so it's yet
certainly not as glamorous andas it portrayed and there's a
lot of restrictions as well.
So it's more of a more of aservice industry I think.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
I think it's more of a sort of a calling in a way
which, yeah, I think you touchedon something earlier about
having real world experience aswell.
I think that's possibly to yourcredit and will probably
differentiate you, I wouldimagine, because obviously you
can apply both a human Lens onit as well as a legal lens as

(15:30):
well.

Speaker 2 (15:30):
Yes, I think it does help.
The larger firms didn't seem tobe Be so keen to bring me on
board for that, but I think itdoes help, especially in
employment, where I've employedpeople myself have run
businesses, so I can certainlysee things from both sides.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah, okay, so you're at young hunter now, and so
tell us about that.
How did that all come about?

Speaker 2 (15:54):
Yes, I've just started there recently, so it's
a really exciting opportunity.
They used to have a fairlyflourishing employment practice
but they've been focusing onother things recently and
they've decided they wanted toactively rebuild it and They've
sort of brought me in to helpwith that.
So, yeah, a great group ofpartners.
It's a firm that's been around90 years, so it's got quite a

(16:15):
long established history andChristchurch focused, but they
are looking for more of anational footprint that they do.
They do work all over NewZealand, but they're certainly
looking to expand across thecountry and in Auckland.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
Okay, so for the layman, or for the lessons out
there that maybe aren't superlawyers, or super Super, in tune
with the ways of the lawyerswhat does an employment law
specialist do?

Speaker 2 (16:40):
Right, there's.
Generally our work falls intotwo categories.
So there's advisory.
So someone will call up andit's usually employers saying
I'm looking at employing someone, are my contracts okay, what do
I need to be aware of?
Or someone's brought up thisissue and can you tell me about
the law on it.
So there's the advisory andthen there's the contentious or

(17:01):
Disputes resolution orlitigation area, and that's when
there is a conflict between theemployer and the employee and
they may have raised a personalgrievance or there might be one
on the way, or on the other side, the employer is looking to
take someone through adisciplinary process, possibly
terminate them, and they'reneeding advice around that.
So two quite distinct areas.

(17:21):
Some people work more in onethan the other.
I'm fortunate I've got quite amix of both, but I have had
periods in my life where it'sbeen all disputes and then other
periods where it's been mostlyadvisory.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
But generally that's what the two categories of work
that employment lawyers do okay,and is there a typical size or
type of client that comes to youthe most?
What would you describe youratypical client?

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Yeah, we sometimes act for large corporates, but,
generally speaking, the small,medium enterprises or SMEs,
sometimes individuals, soletraders with, yeah, with one or
two workers, and that is thereason for that is that most
larger organizations have HRdepartments and sometimes they
have in-house lawyers, and sothey'll deal a lot with matters

(18:05):
before needing an externalAdvisor, and so, yeah, that it's
very enjoyable.
I like working with the smallerbusinesses.
You can really get to know themwell and effectively form a bit
of a partnership there.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
Okay, what's the main reason they're coming to you
for?
I mean, you mentioned those twoadvisory, so advisory, I'm
guessing, is how you preventthose things in the first place,
and Obviously, you've thenprobably got, I say slightly,
ambulance at the bottom of acliff, where it's all we're in.
We're in dispute now.
Okay, so so is it the?
Is it personal grievances, thatkind of thing?
Is that not the most commonreason people would come to you?

Speaker 2 (18:40):
Yes, most common.
So people that's theformalization of someone who's
got an issue.
So so people may be unhappywith their workplace and they
may let things sort of go on asan employee.
But when they do raise apersonal grievance, then it's
certainly something that needsto be addressed and it's
something that often, by the waythat they're phrased, an
employer will get caused quite abit of stress and Panic and

(19:04):
seek help around it.
Up to then they might havetried to sort of sort things out
themselves.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
Yep, what's the most common reason for a PG or
personal grievance?

Speaker 2 (19:12):
So it changes over time, but often areas around
bullying, unfair treatment, arevery common, and that's
something that needs a littlebit of unpacking because it's
quite a nebulous term and but itis something that employees
will often raise.
There are also issues aroundpayment whether they've been

(19:32):
paid properly, whether they'vebeen paid their annual leave
when they've been forced to takeit.
So that was something that cameup very much during COVID,
where Employers were requiringtheir employees to take annual
leave during lockdown and andemployees weren't particularly
happy to be stuck at home takingthe annual leave that they'd
planned to go off to Fiji anduse in the middle of winter.

(19:56):
And so, yeah, it is a range ofthings, but probably, yeah,
probably the biggest is a senseof unfair treatment and the
employer perhaps not dealingwith them as they do with other
employees.

Speaker 1 (20:10):
What are the kind of things you could do to try and
prevent those things fromhappening as an employer?
So there's a lot of businesspeople listen to this right.
Yes, there may be businessowners, or maybe people kind of
are responsible for the HR andthe Employee matters within
their business.
So, yeah, what would if that'sone of the most common things?
What are some of the thingsthat you could be doing as a

(20:32):
business to prevent that?

Speaker 2 (20:34):
I always maintain prevention is better than cure
and I think that, whoever you goto, it's really good to reach
out early.
If you don't have your theskills or resources yourself to
deal with the matter, reach outto an expert, because a little
bit of money spent up front willsave a lot of cost and hassle
down the road.
And what I think is as aculture where generally a little

(20:54):
bit of verse to conflict, sopeople will tend to sweep issues
under the carpet, but there isa pressure that builds.
It's almost like a a corkpopping in the end, and that's
often when things go badly wrong.
When Employees or employeeslose their temper with each
other.
They say and do things thatthey come to regret in the heat
of the moment, and sometimesI'll have employers say, oh,

(21:16):
look that this, this employeesraised this issue.
But you know, six months ago,nine months ago, they did this
and I let it go.
And then they did that and Ilet it go and I said, well,
there's no record, I don'teither.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah, did you keep a record?

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Yeah, did you have a meeting about it.
Is there any?
And?
And quite often there isn't itwas all informally sort of dealt
with and and then you know thatwanting to bring that forward
to say, hey, this, thisemployees had these issues.
So I recommend, get advice,deal with it at the time, even
if it's a meeting and just anote on on someone.

(21:49):
You know it might be a writtenwarning, verbal warning, letter
of expectations, something likethat.
Keep a record of it because ifone issue arises, chances are
there'll be other issues downthe track.
But it's very hard to dredge upthese things as an employer and
as an employee.
There's actually a legal limiton when you can bring up issues.
So that's 90 days and that'sreally strictly enforced and

(22:12):
it's surprising.
You know people bring up issues.
I've had someone bring up anissue with me that happened in
1998 and that I saw them lastyear.
So that was a huge elapsed oftime and they're wondering if
they had a case.
I think you're a little bitoutside.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
It's like when you kids say dad lost you, you did
this, sorry, 90 days lost.
Yeah, I'm after him from folkthe night they law my son, I
reckon so.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
And and when I'm, when I'm in these difficult
meetings between employers andemployees, and the employees are
bringing up things that happenfrom more than 90 days ago, I
said, well, look, we'rerestricted on the side of the
table, we're not going to engagein anything that'd be unfair
and that's a way to get thoseoff.
But if there's a formal recordof it, then that can sort of be
brought in a little bit morepowerfully to to a dispute.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
Yeah, it's interesting because the research
I've been doing for work forSurrey, which is my latest
venture, essentially it'sproviding the systems to be
compliant and legal right andit's just interesting.
I think of most of the peopleI've spoken to they've they're
battling with folders andspreadsheets and it's very ad
hoc and it's very sporadic interms of how they store that

(23:19):
data and, yes, I think somethingI had it in my head that was
going to be this super whiz bangAI power tool, but actually
just having a place where youcan store meeting notes and
having the employee date in oneplace actually is Is taken from
zero to five right, which hasbeen interesting.

Speaker 2 (23:33):
Yeah, definitely, and a lot of employers fall down in
the area of poor record keepingand when a dispute arises and
Another body is looking at it,like the employment relations
authority and employment court,they'll just say well, show us
the records.
We weren't there and show us,show us the records of time when
they worked, what they did,what the issues were.
Employers says I don't havethose issues and the courts are

(23:56):
Likely to accept the vision ofthe employee.
So, yeah, keep the records,keep them accurate.
Use an accountant if you're notgood at these sorts of things.
An innovation.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
No, but I get it and I yeah, I think, having been an
employer as well, I think a lotof that was actually put
yourself in that situation andit's.
I think the challenge is whenyou run a business, no one tells
you at the start, these all thethings.
When you take on employees,these all the things you're
gonna have to do I and it takesup a lot of time, I think, and
so if you can systemize any ofthat then and reduce that admin

(24:33):
time, they win, and also alsoit's covering your backside as
well, let's be honest about it.
But on both fronts, you know,as an employee and employee.
So I think having the systemsand processes definitely thing I
would be recommending, and I'veseen you know in my my time as
a consultant as well.

Speaker 2 (24:48):
Yeah, and it provides clarity, because sometimes
employers will say, oh, we'vegot a policy on that that you
didn't follow.
And so where is that policy?
Did they see it?
Did they, did they have anytraining on it?
Is it signed off?
Oh no, no, you know we didn'tdo that.
So, yeah, keep keep theserecords.
And I think, generally speaking, you know, employees are

(25:08):
companies greatest assets.
A business is greatest assets,but they're also their greatest
cost and and potentially a hugeliability, and that's not just
in financial terms, but just inthe culture of an organization.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
This is putting on the spot here.
But you touch on a point thereabout being the cost, but
they're also the biggest assetas well.
You start right.
So if you think about theamount that businesses spend on
their customers, so expensiveCRN systems, their suppliers,
they'll have, you know, extranets and their portals.
Why is it that employees getsuch a bad?
They get such a bad experiencewhen it comes to managing their

(25:44):
data, managing the system.
It's always like you know,we'll make do, we'll manage on
the back of an Afghan and we'llmanage with you know paper, and
so it's.
You've got any opinions on thatwhy employee data is kind of
deemed a third-class citizen inthe scheme of business.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
I think in the organizations I've worked in and
I've worked in a number oflarger and smaller organizations
that Everything is directedtowards the revenue generating
side of the business.
The resources, the focus, thebest staff are directed to the
air, the best paying rewards goto them, and that's the
business's focus.
And second area is is the nonrevenue generating aspects of

(26:19):
the business, so that's admin,hr, all sorts of things which
employees often fall into, those, those, that sort of area.
So I think that's somethingthat perhaps needs to be
reconsidered a little bit bysome businesses is that, hey,
we've got a great sales force,we're getting great sales, we've
got great clients, but as ourback office, as slick and as

(26:40):
well resourced as it should be,because we'll need to, we'll
need to call on that Sooner orlater there'll be something
where we're the.
Any failings will come up andbe expensive.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Yeah, one of the things that I think it's
probably worth asking you aboutis on TV programs and films,
which obviously is always gospeland the truth, right.
But I think definitely inAmerica label laws are
completely different to.
They are in New Zealand andAustralia and UK, right, and the
UK is probably somewhere inbetween.
But the reality is in Americathey can do what they want.

(27:11):
As an employee, they can fire.
You hear these business folkssaying, oh, we're gonna fire
faster than we hire becausewe're gonna get rid of dead wood
and all this.
I just listened to it and I wasat a conference last year.
I was listening to these guysspeaking and the guys and girls
speaking.
I was like, oh my God, youcould you want to survive five
seconds in New Zealand, you'd be.
You know, you've been caughtstraight away.
But I guess the question I'mgonna ask is how much of a

(27:34):
problem is that for you when youhave employers that come to you
go, oh, I've seen it on the TV,we're gonna fire fast, right?
So is that a big problem foryou?
Is that employers kind of havethis misconstrued idea of what
they can and can't do?

Speaker 2 (27:46):
That's a really good point, lee, and I think whether
it's based on TV or just a sortof historical reference, some
employers think that it's theirbusiness.
They can do what they want.
If they want someone, they canbring them in.
If they want them gone, theycan get rid of them.
In a literal sense, that's true, they can terminate them.
But if they do that unfairly orunreasonably there's massive

(28:09):
consequences.
And you mentioned in the Statesthey pretty much have a hire and
fire at will, so you can beasked to clear your desk in an
afternoon and you're out.
And Elon Musk's comments abouthis staff saying if you don't
come to work every day, I'll getrid of you In New Zealand that
would almost be a cause ofaction against an employer if

(28:32):
they started saying those sortsof things.
But in the States, yeah, it'svery much looser and we've got a
history of a master-servantrelationship.
So employment relationshipsessentially started in a master
service basis in the UK, whichis where our law flows from and
there's still references to that.
So if you steal from youremployer, the charge is theft as

(28:54):
a servant.
And so when you think of thatsort of that status, that title,
when you think of people beingin a house.
You know being servants in ahouse.
Shut down to Naby.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (29:04):
It's a very sort of unequal relationship, a very
much unbalanced one, and we'vemoved a long way from there and
that people probably struggle alittle bit with that.
They think it's my business,it's my money, I can do what I
want.
And then on the other sideyou've got employees who think,
you know, this should be a jobfor life, no one should tell me
what to do, I just do it my ownway and they should pay me for

(29:27):
it.
So you do have the two extremes.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
I think it's a tough one, though, because a lot of
the business owners I speak tothink that the pendulum's
shifted too far the other way,to the point where,
unfortunately, they'll now saywell, we probably won't hire
that many people because it'sjust hard work, and so, as you
said, all of the powers in theemployees in their words, not
mine so they don't employ.

(29:50):
And so I just wonder, certainlyas we're going into a technical
recession and the state of theeconomy, I just wonder how much
of a problem it is, because it'sa shame if you've got people
that are entrepreneurs who wantto actually employ people, but
it's becoming so, so, in theirmind, it's not favoring them,
it's all in the employee.
They'll probably go oh, that'stoo hard, they won't employ

(30:10):
people.
But I don't know if you see anyof that.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yeah, I hear that when employer clients have
problematic employees andthey're just like, oh, I can't
get rid of them, anything I dois going to come back as a
lawsuit and it's going to costme more.
So that perception is out thereand, like any sort of perception
, there's kernels of truth to it.
So, essentially, anyone canraise a personal grievance, any

(30:34):
employee can raise a personalgrievance, and we have a fairly
unregulated industry and as muchas we have employment law
advocates, many of whom do agreat job and are everybody as
good as lawyers, and some arequalified as lawyers but not
practicing.
However, it's very low bar toraise personal grievance because

(30:54):
if you type into Google, I'vebeen fired or what can I do,
there's a lot of no win, no fee.
So people can actually raisepersonal grievance without
expending any personal cost,just spending a bit of time and
an advocate will take thatforward, and so suddenly an
employee is hit with a claim andthere the bar or sort of the
difficulty in raising a legalissue is definitely lower in

(31:17):
employment than it might be incivil litigation.

Speaker 1 (31:20):
Do you think that most employers and once again
you speak to different businessowners in my network, but I
think most of them the minute aPG comes up they settle.
It's just not worth the.
You see in everyone's interestto settle and come up with a
compromise.
But do you see that as well?

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Yes, and my role, even though I'm a litigation
lawyer, is to keep my clientsout of court, especially
employer clients, because thedownside risks are probably
higher.
In a way they are paying legalfees, usually by the hour.
I do do sort of set fees andestimator fees and things, but
essentially it's an hourly ratebasis.
The employer, on the other hand, might be on a no win, no fee

(31:57):
representation.
So the more time goes and thefurther we get into litigation,
the more expensive it is for theemployer.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
And here lies my problem, though.
Doesn't that just encouragefrivolous claims?
Though?

Speaker 2 (32:08):
It can do.
It can do and unfortunately Ido see both sides.
I act for both sides, so I'vegot a sort of well balanced chip
on both shoulders.
But and there are sort ofrecidivists, employees who are
fairly well known in certainindustries and they move around,
you know that might work forsomewhere there for a few days

(32:29):
and then they manufacture anissue and leave and expect the
employer to pay.
Unfortunately, when I'm advisingemployer clients, I say as soon
as someone raises a personalgrievance you are looking at
around sort of up to $5,000,that will be one way or another.
That will be your cost.
Either you'll pay out asettlement or you'll pay us to

(32:49):
shut that down.
But it could be more.
Without advice it can be a lotmore.
So it's expensive and it is aburden on employers.
On the other hand, theemployers do hold the purse
strings and so a settlement.
They do have a little bit ofpower in negotiating a
settlement because that employeedoesn't have the money.
They do and they're decidingwhether to agree to release it

(33:12):
and how much.
So yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
I think one of the best bits of advice I got given
was it's a bit like lying rightIf you don't lie, it's easier to
not get caught out If you justsay the truth.
But I think the same goes forhaving like systems and process
in place from day one.
So if you've got everythingwatertight and, as you say,
maybe that's where the advisorycomes in that you do but if
you've got everything watertight, your system's been in place,

(33:37):
your contracts are gettingreviewed regularly.
In theory you've covered allbases, right.
I think that's as you say.
It's probably the preventionbit of it.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
Yeah, and recording issues as they come up, giving
people warnings as appropriate,dealing with misconduct, serious
misconduct, yeah and so, juston that note about, I just want
to get rid of someone.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
So this is the other thing, right, all the business,
I call it business porn.
You know all those businessbooks you read.
But yeah, alan Sugar and theElon Musk, every book you read
they say, oh, if you've got bademployees, cut them out, and
it's the best thing you can doand your business will thrive.
But once again in New Zealandyou're going oh, it's not that
simple, alan, you know we can'tjust cut those people out of our
business.
And I think I read something.

(34:19):
It's something like 15, 16meetings or steps that you'd
have to take.
If you decided today that youknow well as an unscrupulous
employer that you want to getrid of someone, it still takes
16 or 17 meetings.
Is that in the right ballpark?

Speaker 2 (34:33):
Yeah, you can do it in less, but it could extend to
that.
I would think of it more asperhaps four or five meetings
and a bit of correspondence.
But again, that's unfortunatelyfor business owners.
It's an area of business theydon't want to be caught up in.
It's stressful, it'sfrustrating, it's unproductive
and it can be expensive.
So any number of meetings when Italk to clients about well,

(34:53):
these are the steps you shouldfollow, they're oh, you know, I
don't have to go through allthat, I just want to get rid of
them.
They can simply terminate ifthey want to.
But obviously the risks arequite high and there's a low bar
for someone raising a claim.
And then there's all thoseelements.
But I do talk to clientssometimes where they say you
know, this person's put me inhospital because of the stress

(35:15):
that they've caused and theproblems they're causing in the
office environment.
I think they're taking moneyand being, you know, losing us
business.
I think I'll close down.
And so well, you can simplyterminate them.
If it's looking like that'ssuch a huge cost to your health,
wellbeing and your business,you can terminate them and then

(35:37):
just run the gauntlet of seeingwhat comes.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
I was ashamed.
Actually, though you thinkabout that and I can completely
sympathise that, but it'sterrible.
You think that that's actuallybecause that's now the view and
the mentality is well, the law'salways going to favour the
employee and so I haven't got tolook that, even if I've done
everything right, got all thesystems and processes in place,
you know it's still going tocause me grief if I'm ever done
a line.

Speaker 2 (35:59):
Yeah, with good advice and again, I'm not sort
of promoting myself in any wayhere but with good advice you
can shut those down.
So I've been able to shut downa large number of personal
grievances where they just arerelatively frivolous.
They're based on incorrectinformation and fortunately my
clients kept decent records andsaid, hey, we did this, this and

(36:20):
this and we've got evidence ofit that completely contradicts
what they say.
And then you can shut thesethings down at a very early
stage, even quite serious claims.
So yeah, as we touched onbefore your record keeping
processes, having it in oneplace, these things will
immensely help reduce costs downthe track.
So yeah, it is possible andthere is a cost involved.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
obviously you're paying for advice, but Okay, so
you mentioned about workplacebullying being one of the top
reasons.
What are some of the top two orthree mistakes that employers
are making at the moment when itcomes to employment law?

Speaker 2 (37:00):
So there's a range of them.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
Most common ones.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
Yeah, most common ones are probably not addressing
issues when they're brought upand then people feeling that
they have to go somewhere else.
I think another one is wherethere are HR departments.
I know there's differentterminology now I still think of
it as HR?

Speaker 1 (37:18):
Exactly, yeah.

Speaker 2 (37:20):
People in culture people in organization.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
You don't employ humans, do you?

Speaker 2 (37:25):
Yes, where they feel that the HR people have sided
with management, and that'ssomething which I think is
unfortunate because it's not howthose areas started off with.
They started off on the basisthat there would sort of be a
neutral go-between and theywould reprimand management where
they're out of line and they'dreprimand employees where
they're out of line.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
Perceptions.
Really, though, right, Joe, I'dbe, because, once again, being
a realist, I would say thatdefinitely happens.
You know, think about whoyou're gonna take the view of.
You're gonna say, oh, thisperson here keeps being this
very high-paid, high-powered job, or the person that isn't
really giving me anything.
So there is something therealist immediately says well,

(38:05):
surely that's just human nature,right?
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (38:08):
and that is the realistic approach.
I always think, when you wantto find out what someone's
motivations are, find out wheretheir money's coming from, and
that will often answer thequestion.
And yeah, they're paid by thecompany and they're paid to
protect the company, and someare open and upfront about that.
But I think yeah.
So in terms of the most commonmistakes businesses make, we're

(38:28):
entering, we're in a technicalrecession.
We're in a technical recession,I think, and a lot of
businesses are looking atredundancies and restructurings
and I think some of the commonmistakes there are
predetermination.
So they think well, you know,I'd quite like Lee out, so we'll
propose this restructure andit'll all look okay, but the end

(38:48):
goal is that he's gone, andthat's where a lot of businesses
fall over.
They focus on the person, so aredundancy is actually about the
role being surplus torequirements.

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Once again, the first thing someone's gonna come and
say is where's the positiondescription?
And it's amazing how manybusinesses I've spoken to.
I say to them you do realiseit's a legal requirement to have
even a description, even somekind, even if it's a paragraph,
and they look down at the flooryou know we've got to have a
chat, so, but that must be quitecommon, like where people have

(39:18):
missed that out or just assumedthat that's not needed.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
Yeah, and it's remarkable because it's yeah
again.
Referring back to our theme, Iguess, which is documentation
and keeping records, is have itall there and it helps both
sides and it can help you, yeah,avoid a claim, it can help you
settle a claim and it can justhelp smooth communication if
there's a central repository ofall this information.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
Okay, so Bullion Record Keep in.
You've obviously touched onthose.
What else?
What's the other kind of commonones that are quirky, that
people wouldn't even think about?

Speaker 2 (39:53):
Quirky ones changing terms and conditions of
employment and thinking thatthey can, and an employer
changing that sort ofunilaterally.
So a lot of employment lawsfocused on consultation and
negotiation, trying to place theparties on equal footing.
But sometimes employers willjust say, oh, you know, we had

(40:14):
this games room, but it's, youknow, new guys have been playing
pool there for a few years, butit's not in anyone's contract,
so we're gonna convert that intosomeone's office.
And then the employees will behey, you know, this is something
we've been doing for years andthis is the actual case.
That happened a few years ago.
And the employers will say well, you know, it's not in your

(40:35):
contract.
And the employees are like well, you're actually changing the
terms and conditions of ouremployment because there's this
custom and practice.
So I bring this up quite a lotwith clients of custom and
practice.
So they go oh yeah, we offeredthis, but it was never.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
In writing so we can take it away.
So how do you deal with that,though?
Because I'm just looking at itand going yeah, it wasn't in the
contract, we didn't guaranteeit, right?
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (40:58):
and it might sound a little bit trivial, I think for
these employees it was a reallynice way they could catch up.
I think there were a lot ofshift workers.
I think it was actually one ofthe CFERAs union associated, and
so it actually provided quite alot of wellbeing and good vibes
for them.
I mean, yeah, from an externalpoint of view, like yeah, it

(41:18):
doesn't sound that significant,but yeah, these terms and
conditions.
So bonuses are an example wherethe laws got quite strict on
whether a bonus is part of yourterms and conditions or whether
it's discretionary.
So a lot of employers make amistake there.
They pay you the same amounteach year as a bonus and then
they decide when you're not to,and that needs quite a bit of

(41:41):
explanation from them.
So that's yeah.
That's another example there.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
But I think once again, if you've got things
written down on the process andit's clearly articulated, then
you're kind of removing thegreat right, I'm guessing.

Speaker 2 (41:56):
Yeah, there's a bit of law recently on discretionary
bonuses, and so they need to bereally clearly separated.
Yeah, you have to call out in aseparate clause right?

Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, definitely Cool One in one in one.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
OK, so that's a quirky one yeah.
Something that employees getreally upset about is car parks
and offices, and I guess we'remaking the assumption here that
people are working in office.
A lot of people don't, butthose are things that when
they're changed again, there'snothing written in the contracts
, but they can be reallyupsetting when someone's had

(42:29):
their own office for a while andsuddenly they need to share, or
they've had a car park andthat's been taken away.
I mentioned the client beforethat was still very upset about
a car park that got taken away20 years ago.
So it's these changes and Ithink a lot of that can be
overcome by consultation andrather than just telling someone
this is what's going to happen,because we're your boss and

(42:50):
you're our worker.
Just taking the approach of youknow the business needs have
changed, our costs haveincreased or we've got more
staff.
What's the best way?
So actually consulting andengaging and that's a big theme
for employment law isconsultation, getting feedback,
considering that feedback,making a decision.
So I think that sort of formulaeven though you're not legally
obliged, you know you can takesomeone's car park away.

(43:10):
If it's not part of theiragreement, you can kick them out
of their office.

Speaker 1 (43:13):
So some of those peripheral benefits or additions
in terms of remuneration, right.
So yeah, it might be parking,might be benefits, it might be
bonuses, incentive.
Yeah, I can imagine it's allthe stuff that people should
think it's salary and that's itright, but actually there's all
these other things that makestuff that contract.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
Yeah, and they're very significant.
It's unusual for an employer tocut someone's wages.
It did happen a little bitduring COVID, but that's usually
untouched.
But it's the other stuff thatpeople view as perks or benefits
and they'll often proudly telltheir friends about it.
It's like, oh you know, I'vegot a car park in the city or
I've got a nice office, I've gota view.
So these are things people takea lot of pride in and they take

(43:56):
it very personally.
When they get taken away, theysee it as almost like a demotion
, which is probably not theintent of the employer.
But yeah, just perhaps beingmore aware of how attached
people get to some of theperipheral things that they get.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
That makes sense.
You mentioned unions, so Iwatched a really fascinating
program.
I can't remember the name of it, it was.
I think it's called AmericanGlass or something that was
basically about.
Have you seen that where it'sthe Chinese factory that buys
the American Glass manufacturers?

Speaker 2 (44:22):
Yes, yes, yeah.
Have you seen that?
That's fascinating documentary.

Speaker 1 (44:25):
Yeah, and just something that was really
telling in that program wasobviously the Chinese being the
Chinese and the way that thatcountry operates.
There's a scene where they wasin a board meeting and they said
they said, oh, we don't wantunions in this plant because the
minute unions kind of getinvolved, productivity goes down

(44:47):
, you know, tenfold, and webecome unprofitable.
And look once again, I see Isit on the fence on this because
you know, my granddad's bothfought for unions and for fairer
rights and safety, and Icompletely get that.
You know the value unions bring.
But then there's the other sideof it, from an employer's
perspective, we'll look at andgo unions are the bane of my
life and we might as well shutdown.

(45:09):
If these clauses and conditionsthey're asking, and there's
collective agreements, right, soI guess this is where I was
going.
So just for the listening, somy understanding and correct me
if I'm getting this wrong when,if you choose to go into a union
, you can actually form part ofa collective agreement.
So rather than having anindividual employment contract,
you have the contract that'spart of the union.
So if you remember the union,these are your conditions and

(45:30):
clauses.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
Is that?
Yes, you're right on the money,and that's something that I've
dealt with quite a bit over theyears.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
So how do you deal with unions at the moment?
Because I say I would imaginethere's definitely conflict
there between employers andunions for different reasons.
So is that quite a common thingyou're dealing with?

Speaker 2 (45:46):
Definitely, and it's a power struggle that's been
going on for hundreds of yearspotentially.
But you know we can.
The unions fought hard for afive day week and an eight hour
day, and so that was over ahundred years ago.
So there's a long history oftension between what the
employers would like and whatthe unions would like.

(46:07):
I see it as interesting.
New Zealand's transformed a lotsince the 1990s where the
Employment Contrast Act wasbrought in.
That might have been before youcame here, but we used to have
a very highly unionisedworkforce, over 80%, and now
we're down to below 20%.
So we've gone from fairly highin the OECD countries to quite
low and I think the criticismaround unions decreasing

(46:31):
productivity is perhaps a littlebit misplaced.
And as much as you look atcountries with higher rates of
productivity and many of themare highly unionised, so you
know the typical go-to's ask andin avian countries and they
have quite high rates of unionmembership and but it's a
different perspective of it Ithink we inherited a bit of the

(46:51):
UK perspective on sort of unionand management being constantly
at war, constantly at battle,and anything goes wrong we have
a strike and shut everythingdown.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
I think a lot that comes from the FATCHI years,
though right in the off-scargeor the coal miners and so you
know, when you're growing up inFATCHES Britain, you get told
that unions are the scourge ofbusiness for it, and I agree,
100%, I think.
But I think what I've saw andwhat I've seen is essentially
that de-unionising kind ofspread from the 80s and 90s and

(47:23):
then spread around the world andhence why we're in the position
we're in now.
But yeah, I hear your pointabout the the productivity and,
yeah, huge problem for NewZealand at the moment.
I don't know what the answerthat is in terms of why we're so
unproductive.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
Yeah, it's an interesting one.
If we could solve it I think wecould become the Switzerland,
south Pacific as they as theyrefer to.
But I think one of the issuespotentially is that businesses
are somewhat reluctant to investin technology and capital
investment and traditionallywe've had quite a low wage, been
quite a low wage economy, sowe're not quite the extreme of,

(47:58):
say, southeast Asia.
But you go to those countriesand you see an enormous amount
of people doing a lot of manualwork that perhaps technology or
a digger or a crane could do?
I think so, and one of thecriticisms of New Zealand some
businesses and I've beeninvolved in these sectors like
tourism is this race to thebottom concept of we get more

(48:20):
customers by being slightlycheaper than the guy next door,
say, it's a rafting company, sowe'll run an equipment that's a
little bit older, we'll pay ourstaff a little bit less, we'll
give them less benefits.
But that sort of race to thebottom is dangerous in some ways
, especially around health andsafety, but it also doesn't add
sort of a quality experience.
So I think there is thepotential for a little bit of

(48:42):
rethink here, and COVID did giveus pause to think.
How do we want to manage ourtourism moving forward?
Do we want millions andmillions of people, you know,
sort of straining all ourinfrastructure, or do we want
sort of a smaller number, ahigher value market?
But I'm not sure if the lessonshave been learned or anything's
much different.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
Okay, joe, we were speaking off there just before
we came on, but there's a coupleof big things, or big trends in
the employment law industry, soto speak, and you mentioned a
couple of those, what thosemight be.
So what are those kind of twoto three big trends at the
moment that the employers needto be aware of?

Speaker 2 (49:21):
Yeah, so there is the , the FPA or the fair pay
agreements, which have come inand businesses have been quite
vocal in their opposition to it.
But they are underway and theyare moving ahead and that sort
of touches on our theme ofunionism where effectively it's
to provide a floor or minimumstandards for certain industries

(49:42):
.
So unions are often theapplicant, they they apply on
behalf of the industry.
So we've got underway fornegotiation.
We've got hospitality securityservices and there's a few
others in the pipeline there andthat's quite similar to the
Australian award system in a waywhere they have, I think, over
120 different industry awards,which is a real handful for

(50:05):
people to manage.
But just this idea that certainindustries will have minimum
standards and that's justtouching on that, that comment I
made before about a race to thebottom that's designed to sort
of stop one businessundercutting the other by
providing poorer terms andconditions for their employees.
So it's interesting but, yeah,businesses oppose it because
it's going to effectivelyrequire them to do things that

(50:28):
they haven't individuallynegotiated.
If they are an industry andit'd be really interesting to
see where it goes, becauseNational may, they may repeal
the legislation.
So it may have come all thisway and then get unraveled by a
new government.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
Without going into the political, going into two
things political, but I wouldimagine that sounds very much
like a labor.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
Yes, yes, and labor is traditionally the the party
of the unions.
I mean the unions will say,well, they've moved a long way
away from that, but so there is.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
There is reasonable union influence there and did I
hear right that that alsoincludes the?
I can't remember what it was.
There was a essentially there'sa clause now where they say
that essentially, you have tocontinue paying someone up to
six months after they've left.
Did I hear that right?
Ah, is that something else?

Speaker 2 (51:15):
Yeah, that might have been for another piece of
legislation which was which Idon't think it's got through yet
, and that was relating torestraints of trade.
Yeah, so there was a Labor Billthrough Helen White, a former
employment lawyer, who wanted tolimit restraints of trade and
the impact that they have onpeople.
So that was that was limiting.

(51:36):
I think that's what you mightmight be referring to it was.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
I think I read somewhere that essentially that
you there's a, there's a lot oflevy or tax that you're gonna
have to start paying, and whatit does is it pays for.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
If, for example, someone let's just say they're a
lawyer and, for whatever reason, it doesn't work out that you
continue, they continue gettingthe wages right, yeah, the
social insurance scheme, and Ithink that was thrown on the
bonfire, along with a lot ofother things, by Chris Hipkins
when he came in.
So that was proposed and thatwas not dissimilar to what a lot

(52:12):
of other countries offer andeffectively a form of social
insurance where they match thewages essentially, so you'd get
the same wages for six months ora period of time.
Yeah, and but I think that's on,that's been burned on the on
the bonfire, so not current.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
So I'd imagine that with the potential change of
government with the electionyear, I'd imagine that that
would have a huge impact on alot of employment law and a lot
of the proposed changes thatprobably in knocking around, yes
, and employment's verypolitical and every party has
their views on it.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
Acts come up with with one of their policies that
if you sign an independentcontractor agreement you're
going to be barred from claimingyou're an employee.
So you know, they've sort of,they've sort of made their mark
there and every party has hasits own views on it and
sometimes the changes aren'tdramatic, but they can be.
They can be quite sort ofincremental, and one of the

(53:05):
academics that I that I spoke to, talked about it's, it's like a
change in the vibe.
So they might not, you know,repeal the Employment Relations
Act 2000, but they'll work awayat the edges and they'll change
this and that, and then in a fewyears you find yourself oh,
it's quite a different sort ofenvironment from what we were in
a few years ago under anothergovernment okay, so you
mentioned one of those acts.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Anything else that employers need to be well?

Speaker 2 (53:26):
yeah, there is the the wage theft act.
So it's interesting.
This was a private members billwhich which has got through and
not all of them do, but they'veactually made taking people's
wages, keeping their wages, acrime.
So that's going to be anamendment to the Crimes Act and
there's going to be a potentialprison sentence and monetary

(53:48):
fine is this similar to?

Speaker 1 (53:50):
there was a case recently with a liquor shop guy
where he was holding back wagessaying, well, I'm paying for
your rent, I'm paying for youraccommodation, like that.
Is that similar to that?

Speaker 2 (54:00):
yeah it.
A lot of the stems from migrantexploitation, which is a huge
issue in New Zealand,unfortunately, and it's
something that I've worked on afew cases around that as well,
and it's it's where employersare using all these sorts of
levers to effectively control orvirtually indenture labor.
It can extend to keeping theirpassport, making them pay a bond

(54:20):
, keeping their wages, and sothis is a, this is a goal to
sort of try and up the ante interms of penalties.
To be honest, I can't see manypeople going to prison for for
this, but it would be somethingthat would get their attention
if a claim was brought up.

Speaker 1 (54:36):
It's probably just a stake in the sand to say, look,
don't do this, right yeah andsimilar to sort of health and
safety sanctions.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
Not many people go to prison for the breaches, but
it's there and it gets people'sattention when they see the
fines and potential prisonsentences.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
Yeah, okay, so we come into the end of our session
.
I've been really fascinated,really enjoyed this dear.
I think this can't be the onlyone, so don't be surprised if
you get a tap on the shoulderswho asked me to come back on to
the show in a few weeks time.
So I'm gonna ask you a finalquestion, which I ask everyone
that comes on to show.
And bit personal, but if Icould go back and let me

(55:16):
rephrase that, so if you couldgo back and give 21 year old
Gerard some advice, what wouldthat be?

Speaker 2 (55:21):
yes, 21 year old Gerard was dropping out of
university and and doing aterrible job painting people's
houses, and so I would go backand try and commits myself to be
more persistent in the face ofchallenges.
I think I think it was it waseasy for me to get put off back

(55:41):
then.
I'm a lot more stubborn, a lotmore determined now than I used
to be, for better or worse, andthat failing at something, not
succeeding the first time, isit's nothing to be ashamed of,
it's nothing you need to runaway from.
I think that you know, the moreI've matured, the more I've
grown up, I've realized that themost successful people have
failed a number of times doingdifferent things, and it's

(56:02):
something that I'd probably tryand drill into my 21 year old
self.
And and not to be too black andwhite about the world, there's
so much and employment laws, oneof those areas where there's so
much in the gray, and that'sprobably where you know there's
a lot of richness of life and inthe gray good answer.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
And if anyone's listening and have got any
employment law matters on theirmind or just want to pick your
brains about some stuff, howwould they get hold of you?

Speaker 2 (56:29):
probably the websites the easiest, lee, and that's
www.
Young hunter dot code on.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
NZ.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Okay, and you go to the about and the team and about
us and yeah, and we're happy totalk to anyone, free initial
consultation and, yeah, justjust happy to to be there for
any inquiries yeah, gerard,thank you so much for making the
time to come and see me today.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
As I said, fascinating interview and
actually pretty confident andpretty certain.
I'll be tapping on the shoulderagain to get you back on and
talk to a bit more about some ofthose trends.
Maybe after the electionsprobably a good opportunity to
do that.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
Oh, greatly thank you for the opportunity.
It's been been really brilliantand, yeah, happy to come in
again anytime.
Cheers, gerard, take care,thank you.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
So that's another great episode, done and dusted,
as always.
I'd love to hear from you ifyou know anyone that's got a
really good story to tell abouthow they are, or not, living a
productive life.
If you want to get in touchwith me, please do so by my
website, wwwleastevansco.
That's wwwleastevansco.

(57:35):
You can email me, lee atleastevansco, or get in touch on
LinkedIn, which way I also hangout in the meantime.
Have a good week.