Immigration New Zealand have released the final version of the revamped Skilled Migrant Category ( SMC ) Resident Visa which includes the Trade and Technician pathway, and non 6 point Skilled Work Experience pathway. The changes are due to take effect on 24 August 2026 and will be relevant for employers with migrant workers that don’t have Bachelor’s qualifications and who don’t work in occupations that require registration. Summary of residence the traditional 6 point Skilled Migrant Category There have been several changes to the traditional 6 point Skilled Migrant Category after 24 August 2026. The changes include: Applicants will only need to meet the SMC wage threshold that applied when they started accruing their skilled work experience. This is different from the current approach, which considers also the wage threshold when a residence application is submitted. The change will allow migrant workers who met the SMC wage threshold when they started work in New Zealand to meet residence requirements without need to meet a higher SMC wage threshold when they submit their SMC residence application. Self-employment/contractor work experience cannot be used to claim work experience. Introduction of a new grace period rule. This is for situations a work visa has been approved but a migrant worker has not yet started work on their approved work visa and the SMC median wage rate increases. The grace period applies if the SMC median wage rate increases within 5 months of a worker being granted their AEWV, providing an exemption to use the SMC median wage rate in effect when the work visa is approved. Shorter periods of work experience for bachelor’s degree and higher qualification holders. Requiring applicants to have a bachelor’s qualifications in certain scenarios if they are claiming 5 or 6 points of a qualification. Summary of residence the Skilled Work Experience pathway The Skilled Work Experience pathway is aimed at people who are working, or have a job offer, in a ANZSCO skill level 1-3 skilled role that is not on the red list. To qualify, applicants will generally need to: work in, or have a job offer for, an ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3 occupation paid at least 1.1 times the Skilled Migrant Category wage threshold; have at least three years of relevant work experience in an ANZSCO skill level 1 to 3 occupation; and have a further two years of skilled work experience in New Zealand, paid at least 1.1 times the SMC median wage. Employers that would like to utilise this pathway should take care around: The Red list: Migrant workers working in roles on the Red list cannot apply for residence under the new non 6 point Skilled Work Experience pathway. The Amber list: Migrant workers working in Amber list roles need to be paid at least a higher 1.2x multiplier for their skilled work experience in New Zealand. Summary of residence the Trades and Technician pathway The Trades and Technician pathway is aimed at people in specified trades and technician roles. To qualify, applicants will generally need to: Work on one of the roles listed here: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/live/resident-visas-to-live-in-new-zealand/skilled-residence-pathways-in-new-zealand/skilled-migrant-category-pathway-to-residence/eligible-roles-for-the-smc-trades-and-technician-pathway-august-2026/ . If a role is not listed, this category cannot be used. Hold a directly relevant Level 4 or higher qualification. Have at least 4 years of directly relevant work experience after gaining that qualification with 1.5 years gained in full time employment in New Zealand being paid at least the SMC wage threshold. Have a further 1.5 years of post-qualification skilled work experience in New Zealand, paid at least the SMC wage threshold. What this means for employers and migrants The immigration landscape continues to change, and further updates are expected across 2026. Employers should consider whether key migrant workers may be affected by the new settings, particularly where those workers are in trade, technician or skilled work experience roles. Migrants who are planning a residence pathway should also review their position before the changes take effect. Our immigration specialists can provide practical advice on the options available and help you plan next steps. Disclaimer: This article provides general commentary on employment, health and safety, and immigration matters. It is not a substitute for legal or professional advice about your specific circumstances. Please seek legal advice if you have questions about your workplace or immigration position.
New Zealand has introduced a new criminal offence for stalking and harassment. The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Act 2025 came into force on 26 May 2026. For the first time, stalking is expressly recognised as a criminal offence. This is important because stalking often involves repeated behaviour that may not look serious when each incident is viewed on its own, but can cause significant fear, distress and harm over time. The need for reform was highlighted after the Independent Police Conduct Authority found failures in the police response before the murder of 21-year-old law student Farzana Yaqubi in 2022. The new offence is intended to close a gap between existing options such as protection orders, restraining orders and remedies under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. What counts as stalking or harassment? A person may commit the offence if they carry out two or more specified acts within a two-year period, and know that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress. These acts can include: watching, following or loitering near a person; unwanted or persistent contact; digital surveillance; doxxing (publishing of personal information without consent); and undermining a person’s reputation, opportunities or relationships. The maximum penalty per offence is five years’ imprisonment. Police notices Police can issue a written notice if they reasonably believe a person has carried out behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, fear or distress. The notice tells the person to stop the behaviour and warns that further conduct may amount to a criminal offence. If the behaviour continues, the notice can help show that the person knew their conduct was likely to cause fear or distress. Intimate visual recordings The Act also gives courts powers to deal with intimate visual recordings connected to the offending. This can include orders to hold those recordings during the trial and, where appropriate, to have them destroyed. What does this mean for employers? Employers should take reports of stalking or harassment seriously, including conduct that happens online or outside the physical workplace but affects work (eg between colleagues outside of work or at the workplace). Depending on the circumstances, employers may need to refer the matter to police, investigate internally, and manage any health and safety or related disciplinary issues. Failing to act may expose an employer to claims such as unjustified disadvantage or constructive dismissal and raise health and safety concerns. Looking ahead New Zealand’s legal framework continues to evolve. Further developments are expected throughout 2026, and employers should review their policies and processes to ensure they can respond promptly and appropriately to reports of stalking or harassment. Our team can provide practical advice on how the new law may affect your workplace and how you can ensure your policies and training reflect the changes. Please contact us if you would like assistance. Disclaimer: This article provides general information about employment, health and safety, and related legal issues. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on for a specific situation. Please seek legal advice before making decisions about your workplace.
On appeal, the High Court has now confirmed the conviction of Ports of Auckland CEO Anthony Gibson for breaching his due diligence duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 ( HSWA ). This decision is important for all employers, not just large organisations. It reinforces a clear message: Having policies and systems is not enough, leaders must actively ensure that safety controls are working in practice. Background The case arose from a fatal accident in August 2020 where a worker, Pala’amo Kalati, was killed by a falling container while working near an operating crane. Although the Ports of Auckland admitted to safety failures, Maritime New Zealand continued to prosecute the CEO personally for his role relating to the incident. Mr Gibson was fined $130,000 and he was ordered to pay $60,000 in costs. The High Court’s Findings The Court accepted that Mr Gibson: was committed to health and safety introduced multiple safety initiatives invested in systems and resources Despite the business having systems in place, they were ineffective in practice, particularly in monitoring work, and how it was done. Specifically, exclusion zones, employee monitoring and health and safety responses were inadequate. Whether an officer has adequately exercised due diligence is an objective assessment based on what a reasonable officer would do in the circumstances. Outcome The High Court found that the District Court Judge’s cost award of $60,000 was appropriate and within the correct range given the nature of the case, the amount of the fine and the actual legal costs incurred. The penalty of $130,000 was also upheld, with the combined sanction being found as not manifestly excessive. Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights several important principles for employers: Delegation does not remove officer responsibility. Officers are accountable for failure to ensure that policies are being applied in practice regardless of how they are delegated. There is increased scrutiny on officer’s conduct in large organisations and the serious consequences that they may personally be liable for. Boards should consider what processes are in place that ensure that policies and plans are being followed in practice. 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 Human Rights Review Tribunal decision is a useful reminder that employers and other agencies must take care when handling complaints about employees, even where urgent safety concerns are involved. What happened? In NJK v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand ( CAA ), the CAA received an allegation that a commercial pilot had been drinking shortly before an international flight. The CAA quickly passed that information to the Australian aviation regulator, which led to the pilot being temporarily stood down and required to undergo a medical assessment. The allegation was later shown to be false. The Tribunal found the CAA had disclosed incomplete and misleading information and had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the information was accurate, complete and not misleading before using or disclosing it. The Tribunal also found the CAA was not justified in withholding the informant’s identity in the circumstances, particularly given evidence suggesting the complaint was vexatious and made using a false identity. Outcome The CAA was ordered to provide unredacted information to the pilot and pay $19,000 in compensation, made up of $7,000 for loss of a benefit and $12,000 for injury to feelings. Key message for employers Urgency does not remove privacy obligations. Before acting on or sharing allegations about an employee, employers should check that the information is accurate, complete and fairly presented. Partial or misleading disclosures can create significant privacy and employment risks. Employers should also ensure they have a fit-for-purpose privacy policy, a Privacy Officer, and managers who understand how privacy duties apply in day-to-day decision-making. Need to review your privacy policy, or don’t have one in place? Send us your current policy and we can provide a fixed price to update it. Alternatively, our best practice Privacy Policy is available for $500 plus GST. We can also provide bespoke privacy training for managers. 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.
Drafting an Individual Employment Agreement ( IEA ) should not slow you down. We have built a new tool to make the process simple, fast, and reliable. It is called the AMM IEA Builder. How it works You complete a short online form. The builder then populates a draft IEA based on your answers. Before you finalise anything, you can preview the draft, check every detail, and go back to fix any errors. The result is an IEA that is accurate, complete, and aligned with the information you provide. Available at launch Two agreement types are ready to use now: Permanent agreement for a new employee Variation to a permanent agreement Fixed term and casual employment agreements are coming next. We expect to release them later this month or in early June. Specialised provisions Some roles need tailored provisions. Please contact us directly if you need any of the following: An availability clause Tools of trade arrangements Bonus or commission schemes An agreement for a high income earner (over $200,000 per year) These provisions require tailored advice. That is how we make sure they are lawful, enforceable, and appropriate for the role. How to access To access the IEA builder, please fill in our form here and we will send you a letter of engagement and generate a link that will be emailed to you. Launch offer To support the launch, we are offering a complimentary review of your first IEA generated through the builder. If you have questions, need support at any point or a customised IEA, you can contact AMM directly on 07 262 0489 for a 15 minute free discussion about an IEA. You can learn more about the builder and read our FAQs on our website. 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.
Our team recently hosted a webinar covering the fundamentals of employment law, along with the key legislative changes employers are navigating this year. Christie McGregor led the session, walking through the basics and what the reforms mean in practice. The message was clear: employment, privacy, health and safety, and immigration law are all changing. A "wait and see" approach is not a strategy. Employers who get ahead of these changes will be in a better position. The webinar covered the recruitment process, choosing the right relationship (including contracting), getting employment agreements right, and how to handle personal grievances and restructures. A recording is available on request. Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 Contractor Gateway Test The new Contractor Gateway Test gives businesses greater certainty when engaging contractors. Five criteria must be met for the test to be met. If your agreements and working practices align with the test, you are in a much more defensible position. If you use contractors, now is the time to review those arrangements. The test is an opportunity to have more watertight arrangements, but only if your contracts and practices actually reflect it. High Income Threshold Employees earning over $200,000 in total remuneration (including salary, allowances, overtime, and bonuses) are now excluded from raising personal grievance claims. The change came into effect on 21 February 2026. For existing employees in this bracket, a 12-month transitional period applies, unless otherwise agreed. For new employees it applies from day 1. Employers will need to think carefully about their position on no fault termination, contractual protections, dispute resolution, and termination exposure for this group, while still being competitive in attracting senior talent. Employment agreements for high earners will need careful consideration. Serious Misconduct Dismissals Changes to remedies for serious misconduct dismissals and around contributory conduct will influence how employers approach disciplinary processes and personal grievance defence. Clear, documented definitions of serious misconduct matter more than ever. Review yours now. Other Changes • The 30-day rule for collective agreement coverage has been removed. • Employees on 90-day trial periods can no longer bring unjustified disadvantage claims. Employment Leave Bill The recently introduced Employment Leave Bill proposes significant change from the Holidays Act. For example, it proposes moving from a week-based entitlement system to an accrual-based model. Here is what is proposed. Annual and Sick Leave Both annual leave and sick leave would accrue from an employee's first day, based on standard hours worked. Part-time employees would accrue less sick leave overall as a result. Bereavement and Family Violence Leave These entitlements remain day-based and continue to be available from the first day of employment. Casual Employees The current entitlement to sick leave after six months would be removed. In its place, casual employees would receive a leave compensation payment of 12.5% of their ordinary hourly pay (for annual and sick leave). Key Takeaways Multiple reforms are already in force and others are progressing. Employers who take a proactive approach in 2026 will be best placed to manage risk, control costs, and make more confident people decisions. Now is the time to review your agreements, policies, and practices, before these changes become disputes. Fixed Price Offers To help you meet your obligations, we are offering the following fixed price solutions: Compliant Contract for Services Template: $1,500 + GST New Best Practice Handbook: $3,500 + GST Includes all recent legislative changes, best practice policies, and forms. The Handbook covers: • Standards of dress • Benefits • Privacy (including data breach guidance) • Filming and photography at work • Leave • Expenses • Performance review process • Electronic communications • Mobile phone use • Criminal record checks for airfreight roles • Travel • Driving and vehicle use • Bullying, harassment and discrimination • Drug and alcohol testing • Disciplinary process To take advantage of any of these offers, get in touch at info@ammlaw.co.nz 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 Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision reminds us that sick leave is a statutory entitlement, not a matter of employer discretion. Getting this wrong can expose employers to significant liability, including findings of constructive dismissal and compensatory awards. Background AXE worked for QVM in an engineering workshop for approximately three years. His employment agreement provided for a 40-hour working week with no requirement to be on call or available outside ordinary hours. In practice, employees were routinely expected to work closer to 50 hours per week. Concerns were raised by the employer regarding AXE’s attendance and use of sick leave. However, these concerns were not addressed through any formal performance management or disciplinary process. Instead, QVM took an informal approach where sick leave would be reviewed and potentially declined based on subjective criteria such as an employee’s history, perceived trustworthiness, and “merit”, even where medical certificates had been provided. The Employer’s Approach to Sick Leave In early 2024, QVM began declining AXE’s sick leave despite being given valid medical certificates. The employer acted on the basis that sick leave was discretionary and could be refused where management was not satisfied the leave was justified. When AXE challenged the employer, the situation escalated, with heated communications around cost to the business and a physical confrontation. The matter was not formally investigated. Instead, AXE was directed to take annual leave. He subsequently resigned, citing breach of his employment entitlements. The employer then unilaterally shortened his notice period, resulting in a further finding of unjustified dismissal. The ERA’s Findings The ERA had little difficulty finding that QVM did not act as a fair and reasonable employer. Key findings included: Sick leave entitlements under the Holidays Act 2003 are statutory and cannot be withheld providing the relevant criteria are met. Policies or practices that require employees to justify or challenge refusals of sick leave are inconsistent with statutory minimum entitlements. Concerns regarding attendance must be addressed through appropriate performance management or disciplinary processes, not by undermining statutory rights. The conduct of the director, including hostile and physical behaviour, and the failure to investigate were not actions of a fair and reasonable employer The ERA also found that AXE was entitled to standby allowances in respect of time spent on an on‑call roster, notwithstanding the absence of express contractual provisions. Outcome The Authority awarded remedies of more than $27,000, including: $16,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation, $10,339 for lost wages and unpaid sick leave; and $1,600 in unpaid standby allowances. No contributory fault was attributed to AXE. Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights several important principles for employers: Sick leave is a statutory entitlement Once eligibility requirements are met, sick leave must be paid in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003. Policies must align with legislation Internal policies and practices cannot override minimum statutory entitlements. Process is essential Concerns regarding attendance or sick leave use must be addressed through fair and lawful processes. Employers are entitled to request proof of illness or injury and information about when the employee is able to return to work. However, employers should be mindful of the limits on what information can be requested. Where ongoing absence becomes an issue, a medical incapacity process should be adopted. Conclusion The decision reinforces that statutory entitlements such as sick leave must be applied consistently and lawfully. Informal or discretionary approaches to minimum employment rights carry significant legal risk for employers. Employers should ensure that their policies and practices align with legal obligations. Where concerns arise, these should be addressed through appropriate processes rather than ad hoc decision-making. Failure to lawfully manage entitlements may result in what would otherwise be manageable workplace issues, escalating into costly employment disputes. 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.
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.
