Articles & Blog

Q: I’ve had a request under the Privacy Act 2020 by a former employee. The employee wants all personal information held by us and some of the information doesn’t even exist. Do I need to respond? A: Yes. If an individual makes a request for access to personal information under Principle 6 (also known as an IPP 6 request), an agency has 20 working days to respond, time being of the essence. The agency would need to notify the individual requesting the information and specify: What information is available, and access will be granted. What information is available, but access will be refused. There are rules around when access can be refused, including if information was legally privileged. This could be the case if there was an employment dispute and legal advice was sought during the process. What information is not held by the agency. Q: I’ve requested personal information from a company and have asked for it to be made available in hard copy. The company has told me that it will charge me for making the information available. Can it do this? A: Yes. In some circumstances an agency can impose a charge for assisting with an IPP 6 request. There are differences depending on whether the agency is in the public sector or in the private sector. For a private sector agency, may only impose a charge where it is making information available in compliance with a request. This could be for all or some of the information that you have requested. It could require that the charge is paid in advance of the information being made available. Where you are requesting information to be provided in hardcopy, the agency may be justified in imposing a charge to cover printing costs and the like. If you consider that the charge imposed is unreasonable, you have the right to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner about the charge. Q: I have been told I am the Privacy Officer in our office. I don’t really know what that means or what my responsibilities are. Can you help? A: Privacy Officer is responsible for responding to any privacy related issues. This might include responding to requests for personal information, correcting personal information if a request for correction is made or managing a privacy breach. If there has been a privacy breach in your office, you need to have a plan about how this is managed to mitigate the harm caused to those individuals that are affected. Your organisation’s Privacy Policy, if there is one, would be the first place to start. You may also need to work with the Privacy Commissioner if an investigation is undertaken. Remember, if you get stuck, our team is always ready to answer any questions you have. Q: An employee accidentally emailed a document to the wrong person. The document contained personal information about another individual, including financial information. What do we do? A: The issue should be referred to your Privacy Officer immediately. Steps need to be taken to mitigate the harm which could include trying to recall the email or contacting the recipient and requesting that the email is deleted immediately. The Privacy Officer will need to consider whether the privacy breach is likely to cause serious harm. If the answer is yes, the Privacy Officer must notify the Privacy Commissioner and any affected individuals as soon as practicable. Failure to notify where the breach is likely to cause serious harm could result in fines of up to $10,000. Q: I have heard that a new privacy principle has been introduced. Can you explain a bit more about what my obligations are as an employer? A: On 1 May 2026, Information Privacy Principle 3A (IPP3A) came into force and applies to all personal information agencies collect from 1 May 2026. In short, this new principle changes an agencies obligation when it comes to collecting personal information indirectly. To collect personal information indirectly means to collect the personal information from someone other than the person themselves. Under IPP3A, agencies are now required to notify the person that they have indirectly collected personal information about them, unless an exception applies. The Privacy Act 2020 details the specific notification requirements an agency must follow. Q: Can you provide an example where an employer is required to comply with the new obligations under IPP3A? A: An employee raises personal grievance with their employer alleging they were unfairly treated during a project. As part of its investigation, the employer contacts an external consultant who worked with the employee on the project to request information about what occurred, including whether the consultant believes the employee was responsible for the issue. The consultant’s opinion about the employee’s conduct or responsibility could be considered ‘personal information’ about the employee. By obtaining this information from an external consultant rather than directly from the employee, the employer has indirectly collected personal information from a third party and is required to comply with IPP3A. Q: Can you provide an example of where an exception to IPP3A may apply, and an employer does not have to inform an individual that they have indirectly collected their personal information? A: An exception to IPP3A may apply where not notifying the individual would not prejudice their interests. For instance, an employer may collect emergency contact details from an employee, including information from the employee’s nominated emergency contact. It is reasonable for the employer to assume the employee has an existing relationship with the nominated contact and has made them aware of their role as an emergency contact. The employer may not need to notify the emergency contact directly. The lack of notification does not negatively affect the emergency contact’s interests. The information collected is minimal and unlikely to create any risk or disadvantage for the emergency contact. Privacy risk management Privacy complaints are becoming increasingly common, especially where employment processes are challenged. As well as appointing a Privacy Officer, which is a requirement for all agencies, to reduce risk, employers should have a fit‑for‑purpose privacy policy, and ensure their teams understand and comply with privacy duties in day‑to‑day decision‑making. Need to review your Privacy Policy? Don’t have a Privacy Policy? Send us your current policy and we’ll give you a fixed price to update it, OR, buy our best practice Privacy Policy for $500 plus GST. Need training for your team on privacy obligations? Talk to us about a bespoke session. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

A recent decision of the Employment Relations Authority ( ERA ) highlights the critical importance of employers consulting with employees about health and safety risks in the workplace. Background The case involved a corrections officer, Mr Farrell, who was assaulted multiple times by prisoners over a two‑year period while working in his home unit. Mr Farrell raised a personal grievance alleging unjustified disadvantage arising from: breaches of his Collective Employment Agreement; and breaches of the Department of Corrections’ statutory obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to provide a safe system of work. During this period, Corrections received intelligence reports identifying that Mr Farrell was at risk of harm. These reports were not shared with him, nor did Corrections develop a return‑to‑work plan or consider redeploying him to another unit. Instead, Corrections continued to offer him overtime in his home unit despite the ongoing risk, and failed to undertake a proper risk assessment. The ERA’s Findings The ERA, in its 2024 determination, held that Mr Farrell had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by Corrections’ failure to provide him, in a fair and reasonable manner, with relevant information about serious threats to his health and safety following his return to work. In addition, the ERA found that Corrections failed to take reasonably practicable steps to provide Mr Farrell with a safe working environment. Following the second incident, Corrections had instructed Mr Farrell merely to “stay away” from the prisoner. The ERA found this instruction was vague and inadequate in circumstances where there was an acute and known risk. What was required were clear and specific instructions to guide Mr Farrell’s interactions with the prisoner in the period immediately following the assault. The ERA also considered two further findings of unjustified disadvantage. First, Corrections placed Mr Farrell on alternative duties at the gatehouse on 13 March 2018 following a disciplinary process arising from the 9 March incident. Second, Corrections suspended Mr Farrell on 6 April 2018 after Police charged him in relation to the 20 April 2017 assault. In relation to the gatehouse placement, Corrections failed to fairly consider Mr Farrell's views before making its decision. In relation to the suspension, while suspension may be appropriate in some circumstances, the ERA found that Corrections failed to follow a fair and proper process by considering alternative duties before proceeding. Outcome In its 2024 determination, the ERA reserved its decision on remedies to allow the parties an opportunity to resolve these matters themselves. However, this was not achieved. As a result, in 2026, the ERA ordered Corrections to pay the following remedies: $60,000 for compensation; $9,500.06 (gross) for lost overtime; $25,000 in general damages; and $8,000 in penalties (50% payable to Mr Farrell). Key Takeaways for Employers This case provides important guidance for employers: Risk assessments and safety information: Relevant risk assessments and safety intelligence should be shared with affected employees so they can meaningfully engage in discussions, particularly when developing return‑to‑work plans or threat assessments. Consultation and process matters: Employers should carefully review their policies and employment agreements when considering suspension or alternative duties. Any changes must be proposed and consulted on, and alternative duties should be considered before suspension is imposed. Employee concerns must be taken seriously : Requests and concerns raised by employees regarding health and safety risks must be carefully assessed and responded to in a timely and considered manner. The decision reinforces that health and safety obligations are not merely procedural – meaningful consultation and proactive risk management are essential to meeting both statutory and contractual duties. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

The Government has announced proposed changes to the Immigration Act which will affect residence visa holders and temporary visa holders. These changes are currently progressing through Parliament with select committee submissions close date on 29 April 2026. We are summarised some of the changes that will impact resident visa holders and temporary visa holders. Deportation Settings A key feature of the Bill is the increasing of period that convictions can trigger deportation liability for residence class visa holders. For lower-level offending, the deportation liability period will increase from 2 years to 5 years. For more serious offending, the liability period will extend from 10 years to 20 years. A snippet of the proposed changes is at the end of the article. Additionally, victims of serious offences committed by migrants will have the right to be heard during deportation proceedings, regardless of whether the victim was directly associated with the offending for which the deportation liability is raised. Appeal Rights and Deportation Proceedings The Bill also proposes changes to appeal rights for visitor visa holders and temporary visa holders who have committed criminal offences. Under the proposed changes, these visitor holders and people who had held a visitor visa prior to becoming unlawful will no longer be able to appeal their deportation liability to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on humanitarian grounds. Temporary visa holders with convictions will lose the ability to appeal to the IPT on humanitarian grounds. After the changes come into effect: doctors, nurses, engineers and other skilled workers that receive a conviction e.g. for drunk driving will be at risk of deportation without the ability to appeal to the IPT on humanitarian grounds (putting their ability to remain in New Zealand at serious risk). Migrant Exploitation The Bill the maximum penalty for exploitation offences from seven years’ imprisonment to ten years. In addition, new infringement offences will be introduced for providing false or misleading information, or for withholding relevant information. The timeframe for authorities to detect and respond to migrant exploitation offending will also be extended — from 90 days after the offending occurred to 270 days from the date the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) becomes aware of the offending. Changes Affecting Asylum Seekers The Bill proposes preventing individuals from applying for a further visa while remaining in New Zealand after withdrawing an asylum claim. This change is intended to discourage abuse of the asylum system by individuals who lodge claims to remain in New Zealand while seeking alternative immigration pathways. Moving Forward New Zealand’s immigration framework continues to evolve, and further changes are expected throughout 2026. Our team of specialists is available to provide tailored, practical advice to help individuals and employers navigate the increasingly complex and shifting immigration landscape. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require assistance. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

The Employment Court has ordered a former sales manager to pay his employer $900,000 in damages after he actively undermined its key supplier and customer relationships while preparing to leave. The case is a timely reminder that an employee's duties of loyalty and good faith continue right up until their last day of employment and that breaching those duties can have serious financial consequences. Facts of the Case The Employment Court’s judgment was a de novo challenge to an Authority decision that declined to award a remedy to either party, finding that they both had breached their obligations. This case concerned Mr Renner, a long-serving sales manager at Robertson Isuzu, a vehicle sales business in Palmerston North. A central part of his role involved developing and managing the company’s exclusive New Zealand distribution relationship with ShinMaywa Industries Ltd, a Japanese manufacturer of truck-mounted equipment. While he was still employed by Robertson Isuzu, Mr Renner began positioning himself to work with ShinMaywa or through a competitor after his departure. He facilitated introductions between Robertson Isuzu's customers and ShinMaywa directly, provided a competitor with ShinMaywa's contact details, and actively raised doubts with ShinMaywa about whether Robertson Isuzu would be able to adequately service the relationship once he left. He also negotiated a potential $200,000 sign-on bonus with a competing business to convert Robertson Isuzu's existing customers across. Shortly before resigning in July 2023, ShinMaywa advised Robertson Isuzu that it intended to move from an exclusive to a non-exclusive distribution arrangement, putting Robertson Isuzu on notice that something might be wrong. Mr Renner’s employment agreement contained a restraint of trade clause, but it was left incomplete, making it unenforceable. Robertson Isuzu claimed that Mr Renner breached his common law duties of fidelity and good faith. Mr Renner claimed that his commission was not correctly calculated by his employer and that, as a result, he had not been paid correctly. Held The Court found that Mr Renner had breached both his common law duties of fidelity and good faith, and his employment agreement. While an employee is entitled to take preparatory steps to compete against their employer even while they remain employed and they are also not required to inform the employer that they have started begun taking such steps, an employee cannot take steps that cause, or risk causing damage to the employer’s good will and reputation. It was also established that Mr Renner’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing ShinMaywa to end its exclusive arrangement with Robertson Isuzu, and in causing customers to seek to deal with ShinMaywa directly rather than through Robertson Isuzu. He acted as a conduit to arrange for customers of Robertson Isuzu to deal directly with ShinMaywa, and undermined Robertson Isuzu’s relationship with ShinMaywa, including raising issues about whether Robertson Isuzu was going to be able to provide adequate service to ShinMaywa after he left. These were all in breach of his common law obligations of fidelity and good faith to his employer, which were also set out in his employment agreement. The Court also reaffirmed the need for a causal connection between the employer’s loss and the employee’s breaches, ruling, that where the breach was a substantive factor in causing loss, that will suffice. The Court found that Mr Renner’s conduct caused Robertson Isuzu’s loss. Remedies On remedies, the Court adopted a loss of a chance approach. It accepted that some of what Mr Renner did would have been legitimate competition once his employment ended, and that Robertson Isuzu's loss was not solely attributable to his breaches. The Court awarded $900,000, representing slightly over 40 per cent of the lowest loss estimate put forward by Robertson Isuzu's expert, plus interest. The Court found that the suggested discount was reasonable and ordered damages of $900,000 plus interest until the debt was paid. The Court also found in Mr Renner’s favour on the commission issue, confirming that Robertson Isuzu misapplied its commission policy. An amount of $75,812.36 was left for parties to resolve, and this sum will reduce the damages payable by Mr Renner. Key Takeaways for Employers This case carries several important messages for employers. Finalise Agreements: Employers who rely heavily on a single employee to manage a key supplier or customer relationship are exposed to real risk if that employee departs, particularly if the employment agreement does not contain a properly completed and enforceable restraint of trade clause. A template agreement with blank restraint clauses will not assist. Agreements should be carefully reviewed and completed before they are signed. Good Faith: Employees owe duties of fidelity and good faith to their employer until employment ends. Those duties do not prevent an employee from quietly planning to leave or to compete, but they do prohibit taking active steps that damage the employer's business, relationships, or reputation while still on the payroll. As this case shows, where an employee crosses that line, the financial consequences can be significant. Actively Manage Remuneration Processes: Robertson Isuzu lost the commission argument because the Court found the entitlement arose earlier than it had been paying it. Employers with commission-based remuneration should ensure their agreements are clear and that their actual practice is consistent with those terms. How can we help? Please get in touch with our team if you have any questions or would like to discuss your employment agreements or obligations. Contact our team for more information. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek guidance from your employment lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

The Employment Leave Bill was Introduced on 9 March 2026 and is set to replace the Holidays Act 2003.​ It has been referred to the Education and Workforce Committee and is due for a second reading by 13 July 2026.​ Problems with the Holidays Act 2003 are well known. This Bill has been described as achieving a simpler regime, with reduced administrative burden and compliance costs.​ The Bill includes a two-year transition period for employers to adapt to the new regime. Annual Leave​ Under the Bill annual leave will now accrue from an employee’s first day of work, at a minimum rate of 0.0769 hours per standard hour of work.​ Annual leave also accrues during periods of paid statutory leave, parental leave, volunteer leave, and jury service.​ Annual leave will not accrue while receiving compensation from ACC.​ Annual leave is recorded in hours (not weeks) and balances are not adjusted if the number of standard hours changes (e.g. a person changes from full to part time). Sick Leave​ Under the Bill sick leave will accrue from an employee’s first day of work, at a minimum rate of 0.0385 hours per standard hour of work.​ Employees can accumulate up to 160 hours (20 days for a standard 8 hour day, 5 days a week).​ Sick leave is taken in hours against standard hours and additional hours (e.g. hours worked under an availability provision or hours beyond those that are contracted that an employee can refuse).​ Bereavement Leave and Family Violence Leave​ These remain day-based entitlements but arise from the employee’s first day of employment. Employees may take part-days of these entitlements (e.g. a half day to attend a funeral). Employees with Multiple Roles Employees who perform multiple roles with the same employer will carry separate leave balances based on the hours worked in each role. New Casual Leave Payment Plan​ A new Leave Compensation Payment ( LCP ) scheme is proposed to replace the current pay as you go holidays scheme. This covers not just annual, but also sick leave entitlements, meaning a casual worker cannot access annual or paid sick leave, being paid ‘as you go’. This is a significant change.​ The LCP is set at 12.5% of an employee’s ordinary hourly rate, paid for all causal hours worked. Otherwise Working Day Test - Variable Employees​ An otherwise working day ( OWD ) test is created for determining entitlement to paid public holidays, this is for employees who do not have fixed days of work in their employment agreement.​ A day is an OWD if the employee has worked (or was on leave) for 50% or more of the same day of the week as the public holiday in​ the preceding 13 weeks. Key Takeaways for Employers The Bill changes holiday accrual compliance fundamentally and employers will need to be informed and ready to comply. We recommend that at this stage that employers: Consider the makeup of their workforce and the degree to which they will be impacted (e.g. high casual workforce) Consider the readiness of their payroll systems or payroll provider to ensure that they can ensure a smooth transition. Review leave entitlements in employment agreement and policies, noting that changes may be needed now to ensure the employer has not unintentionally created contractual entitlements. Our team can assist with your leave compliance, including updating employment agreements and policies, as well as assisting with employee communications around the changes once they are implemented. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek guidance from your employment lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

Immigration New Zealand ( INZ ) has announced changes to the Skilled Migrant Category ( SMC ) Resident Visa that will help employers retain skilled workers and support long-term economic growth. These changes are set to take effect from August 2026. While a raft of changes have been announced, the full policy is not yet been released. We have summarized information in respect to the changes. Two new residence pathways are set to be introduced. Skilled Work Experience Pathway This pathway is for migrants in skilled roles (ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3) with at least 5 years of directly relevant work experience, including 2 years in New Zealand earning at least 1.1 times the median wage. Trades and Technician Pathway This pathway is for migrants who: work in specified ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3 trades and technician occupations. who hold a relevant Level 4 or above qualification, and who have at least 4 years of directly relevant experience gained post qualification, including 1.5 years in New Zealand earning at least the SMC median wage. English language English language test results will be valid for 5 years for applicants who hold a recognised occupational registration. Amber List If a migrant wishes to apply under one of the two new skilled pathways but works in an occupation on the Amber List, they must meet additional eligibility requirements of: At least 5 years of relevant eligible work experience in New Zealand; including 2 years of skilled work experience earning at least 1.2 times the SMC median wage. Red List If a migrant wishes to apply under one of the two new skilled pathways but works in an occupation on the Red List, they will not be eligible. Wage Settings Migrants will only need to meet the SMC median wage specific to their pathway when they start gaining skilled work experience and maintain at least that rate when applying for residence. The changes also introduce a grace period for situations where the SMC median wage increases before a migrant starts work. If a migrant begins skilled work experience within 5 months of their work visa being granted, the wage threshold that applied on the day the visa was granted will be used. Extension of Accredited Employer Work Visa Migrants who need up to 12 additional months of skilled work experience will be able to apply to extend their visa to complete it. This extension ability is scheduled to be introduce in 2027. Qualification Points New Zealand degrees will now provide 1 more qualification point than for those completed overseas. With an exception for doctoral and some master’s degrees. Applicants must provide: 1. The qualification certificate; and 2. an International Qualification Assessment ( IQA ) if the qualification was gained overseas and is not on the List of Qualifications Exempt from Assessment ( LQEA ). Quicker pathway to claiming 6 points 

Amendments to the Privacy Act 2020 will come into force on 1 May 2026, introducing a new Information Privacy Principle – IPP 3A. This change strengthens transparency obligations where personal information is collected indirectly, that is, from someone other than the individual concerned. The new principle is particularly relevant for employers and agencies who regularly receive personal information via recruiters, referrers, other professional advisers, or third‑party agencies. What does IPP 3A require? Under IPP 3A, if an agency collects personal information about an individual from a third party, it must notify the individual as soon as practicable after collection. The notification must include: confirmation that the individual’s personal information has been collected the purpose for which the information was collected who will receive the information the agency’s contact details whether the collection is required or authorised by law the individual’s rights to access and request correction of their information. This is a new and explicit obligation and goes beyond the previous general transparency requirements under IPP 3. Key exceptions IPP 3A does not apply in limited circumstances, including where: the information is publicly available collection is required or authorised by law notification would prejudice national security or reveal trade secrets. These exceptions should be applied carefully and, on a case-by‑case basis. Common workplace scenarios By way of example, IPP 3A will generally apply where personal information is received: through recruitment agencies from a client organisation about its employees from another government agency, unless a statutory exception applies. It will not apply where information is sourced solely from publicly available material, such as LinkedIn profiles. What should employers and agencies do now? In light of the new requirements, the practical “to do list” includes: Review and update privacy policies to address indirect collection and IPP 3A notification obligations. Update internal procedures to ensure individuals are notified promptly when information is received from third parties. Review templates and terms , including letters of engagement and contractor documentation, to ensure IPP 3A is appropriately reflected. Include IPP 3A in privacy training and compliance advice. Agencies should ensure not only that their documentation is compliant, but that their practices in reality align with the new notification requirements. Fixed Price Offers To support your business in meeting your privacy obligations, we are offering a range of fixed price solutions: New Best Practice Handbook: $3,500 plus GST. This includes the recent changes above, best practice policies and forms: The Handbook covers the following policies: Standard of dress; Benefits; Privacy, including high level information on what should occur in a data breach situation; Filming and photography at work; Leave; Expenses; Performance review process; Electronic communications; Mobile phone; Criminal record checks for airfreight roles; Travel; Driving and vehicle use; Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination; Drug and Alcohol Testing; and Disciplinary Process  Privacy Training: $2,500 + GST. This one hour session is designed to be practical and engaging, helping leaders and teams understand their obligations, recognise privacy risks, and respond appropriately to privacy issues in day‑to‑day operations. Privacy Policy: $1,000.00 + GST. For businesses requiring a standalone policy. If you would like us to take advantage of any of these offers, please contact our team . Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

Illness in the workplace is a regular part of running any orga nisation, but managing it well is essential to meeting both your employment law and your health and safety obligations. Getting this balance right supports staff, protects productivity, and reduces legal risk. Employment Law From an employment law perspective, employers must approach illness issues fairly, reasonably, and with good faith. Below are four key points. Use sick leave correctly Employees are entitled to sick leave when they are unwell or caring for a dependant. Employers can request medical proof after three consecutive days of absence (or earlier if the employment agreement allows and the employer covers the cost). Avoid making assumptions about health conditions Employers must not jump to conclusions about an employee’s ability to work. Before considering any change to duties, performance expectations, or employment status, seek medical information through a fair process, always with the employee’s consent. Manage long-term or repeated illness carefully Where illness impacts an employee’s ability to perform their role, employers may need to start a medical incapacity process. This must include: Clear communication Access to relevant medical information Consideration of reasonable adjustments Genuine consultation before decisions are made A poor‑process incapacity dismissal is a most common sources of unjustified dismissal claims. Protect employee privacy Health information is sensitive information. Collect only what is reasonably necessary, store it securely, and share it strictly on a need‑to‑know basis. Health and Safety Law Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, businesses must ensure the health and safety of workers so far as is reasonably practicable. This extends to managing risks associated with illness. Prevent the spread of illness in the workplace Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure unwell staff do not pose a risk to others, particularly in roles involving vulnerable clients or high‑risk environments. Address psychosocial risks Work‑related stress, fatigue, burnout and mental illness are recognised workplace hazards, and WorkSafe expects businesses to manage them like any other risk. That includes: Monitoring workload Ensuring adequate staffing levels Providing access to support Responding early to signs of stress or deterioration Support a safe return to work A staged or modified return to work may be reasonably practicable and can reduce future injury or illness. Collaboration between the employer, employee, and medical professionals is key. Lead by example Managers play an important role in building a culture where people feel safe to stay home when sick, take breaks, and disclose health issues early. Where the Two Frameworks Meet Employment law focuses on fair process and rights, while health and safety law focuses on risk management. The crossover is significant: A failure to manage stress or workload can become both a bullying/personal greivance risk and a WorkSafe issue. Requiring an unwell employee to work can breach health and safety obligations and create an unjustified disadvantage. Managing illness well supports productivity, wellbeing, and retention. Need Help? We regularly assist clients with medical incapacity processes, managing fatigue and stress in the workplace, bullying policies and policy reviews. If you’d like advice or tailored training for your managers, our team can help . Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.