Articles & Blog

In late 2025, the District Court set aside an improvement notice issued by WorkSafe to Pharmalink Extracts Limited ( PEL ). The notice related to alleged failures to comply with provisions of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 (Regulations). Background PEL uses extraction processes to obtain materials from natural materials like krill and green shell mussels. One of the extraction processes uses a mixture of carbon dioxide and ethanol under very high pressure and heat. This mixture, known as CO₂‑expanded ethanol ( CXE ), is contained inside sealed equipment. In these conditions, CXE does not behave like liquid ethanol and does not carry the same fire risk.  Despite this, in November 2024, a WorkSafe inspector issued an improvement notice because it believed ethanol, a flammable liquid, was being used in a building at PEL’s site that did not meet required safety standards. The notice said PEL must either upgrade the building to meet those standards or apply for a regulatory exemption. The Appeal PEL challenged the notice in court. It said the substance used in the extraction equipment was CXE, not ethanol. PEL explained that if there were a leak, the real risk would be a flammable gas or vapour, not a liquid, and that this risk was already being properly managed. PEL also argued that forcing it to follow rules for flammable liquids would interfere with its existing safety systems and could make things less safe for workers. For that reason, it said WorkSafe’s approach did not align with the purpose of health and safety law. The Court’s Findings The Court looked at whether WorkSafe’s decision to issue the improvement notice was unreasonable. It found that WorkSafe had misunderstood the regulations by focusing on how ethanol is classified in isolation, rather than on what substance was actually being used by PEL. process. Based on expert evidence, the Court accepted that the substance in use was CXE, which behaves differently from liquid ethanol. If a leak occurred, the real risk would be a flammable gas or vapour, not a liquid, so gas‑based controls were the correct safety measures. The Court found that WorkSafe relied on the wrong considerations and ignored relevant evidence by treating the process as if it involved separate ethanol and CO₂ under normal conditions. It also rejected the idea that WorkSafe could default to ethanol’s classification simply because CXE does not have its own formal classification. Importantly, the Court held that WorkSafe’s approach conflicted with the purpose of health and safety law, as it would have required safety controls that increased, rather than reduced, risk. For those reasons, the improvement notice was found to be unreasonable and was set aside. Practical Implications for PCBUs For PCBUs, the case confirms that health and safety compliance must be based on the substance and risks that actually exists in practice , not just the classification of component. Further, controls must be matched to the real hazard posed by the process, as applying incorrect controls can increase risk rather than reduce it. Where operations are complex or novel, early expert evidence is critical to explain how the process works and what risks genuinely arise. 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.

Immigration New Zealand ( INZ ) and the government continue to make changes in the New Zealand visa, employer compliance, and investment visa spaces, we don’t anticipate a slowdown in changes. We have set out below a summary of changes that have already been implemented and what we anticipate seeing in 2026: Deportation Liability INZ will likely introduce policy or law that expands deportation liability of resident visa holders who commit serious offences, potentially allowing historic crimes committed before arriving in New Zealand to trigger deportation liability and make other deportation liability related changes. These changes will likely impact temporary and residence visa holders in New Zealand. AEWV changes INZ will likely provide more information in 2026 on the shift from using ANZSCO to the National Occupation List ( NOL ) this year. Currently only 87 or so new occupations from the NOL have been incorporated into the AEWV scheme which still predominantly uses ANZSCO. Skilled Residence Median Wage The current Skilled Residence Median Wage rate of $33.56 for the Skilled Migrant Category reflects the June 2024 publication of median wage data by Statistics New Zealand. Statistics New Zealand published a new a Median hourly earnings from wages and salaries of $35.00 for the June 2025 quarter. It is likely that INZ will provide clarification later this year on whether the new June 2025 median wage will be adopted as the new Skilled Residence Median Wage rate or not. Changes to the Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa The Skilled Migrant Category will be expanded to allow more skilled migrant workers to apply for residence earlier and after August 2026, through changes that expand eligibility through the skilled work experience pathway and trades and technician pathway. We anticipate that the full policy with changes will be released before August 2026. RSE changes INZ have announced a new approach to accommodation costs for Recognised Seasonal Employer ( RSE ) workers that will take effect from April 2026. Under the new system, weekly rent caps will range from NZD $150 to NZD $211, depending on the quality and features of the accommodation. Characteristics such as the number of people sharing a bedroom, the age of the building, and bathroom proximity and type of access from bedrooms will determine the allowable rent. Employers will also need to table care around recovering the actual cost of providing accommodation and make sure that recovery is compliant with New Zealand’s employment laws, including the Minimum Wage Act and the Wages Protection Act. Moving Forward The New Zealand immigration space continues to change, and we expect changes across 2026. Our team of specialists are ready to help with bespoke and practical advice and solutions on navigating the tricky and constantly changing immigration landscape. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need 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.

Employment Court: YFR v Reserve Bank of New Zealand / Te Pūtea Matua Background YFR, a Payments and Clearance Officer, was employed by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Bank) on a 10 month Fixed Term Agreement (FTA). Four weeks prior to end of the FTA, YFR applied for jobs and asked her manager and a supervisor to be referees, which was agreed to. The Bank’s policy advised that references were to be provided on a personal basis and not on behalf of the Bank. YRF was offered a role in another company subject to satisfactory pre-employment checks including references. At the conclusion of those checks, the company withdrew its offer. YFR was surprised and upset at this, particularly when it became obvious to her that it was as a result of a negative reference check process, when she was advised by the company that she should refrain from using her manager and her supervisor as references in the future. The Court found that when her manager was asked if she would re-employ YFR, she had said she would not. YFR then sent a number of angry Teams messages to her manager and supervisor, accusing them of “backstabbing” her and the next day she apologised for her comments, however by then and the matter had been escalated to HR with concerns over YFR’s wellbeing as well as the manager’s own wellbeing. HR organised a 15-minute “catch up” to discuss her wellbeing, without fully clarifying the purpose of the meeting. YFR left and later raised a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage alleging her inability to return to the workplace and say goodbye to her colleagues caused her considerable distress. Claims YRF alleged three events caused her to be unjustifiably disadvantaged. The questions before the Court were whether the Bank unjustifiably disadvantaged YFR: When it met with her for the “catch up” on her wellbeing? By removing her access to its systems after this? By failing to respond to her representative’s email seeking her return to the workplace? Did the Bank unjustifiably disadvantage YFR by the catch up meeting? The Court reviewed how the meeting was set up and the content of the meeting and commented that: Nature and purpose of the meeting YFR was not offered a support person YFR was not told that the Bank was going to propose she be placed on paid leave, which was more significant than just an informal conversation to check on her wellbeing The email arranging the meeting was not clear that it was YFR’s wellbeing that was going to be discussed, and YFR thought it was to discuss her manager’s wellbeing. Conduct and content of the meeting The Bank described the relationship between YFR and her manager as “damaged and broken” The meeting that was meant to be 15 minutes but went on for 45 minutes YFR was given two options to move forward, to be placed on paid leave for the remaining three weeks of her FTA or if she continued working, the Bank would commence a disciplinary process; and YFR became upset and ended the call by saying she needed to speak to her union. The Court held, in summary, that: YFR was disadvantaged by how the meeting was set up and its content. Not being offered a support person was a serious flaw in its process considering YFR’s history of requiring a support person in highly stressful situations particularly due to her neurodivergent background. While it was open to the Bank to describe the relationship as “damaged”, it was premature and unjustified to describe it as “broken down” in the absence of any formal process. YFR feeling like she had no choice but to go on leave after the meeting was caused by the Bank’s actions that were inconsistent with its obligations of good faith including, in particular, being active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship. Did the Bank unjustifiably disadvantage YFR by removing her access to its systems? The Bank then removed access to systems for YFR because she sent messages in the team chat saying: The Bank was attempting to constructively dismiss her; She was going to take the Bank “to the cleaners”; and HR had bullied and intimidated her, and that she was “disgusted”. The Court held that the Bank invited her to a meeting after to discuss the temporary suspension from services and had previously sent her a letter of expectation about appropriate online communications and not using the team chat to raise personal work concerns or potentially controversial views or feedback. As such, its actions to temporarily remove access were not unreasonable and did not disadvantage YFR. Did the Bank unjustifiably disadvantage YFR by failing to respond to her representative’s email seeking her return to the workplace? YFR’s lawyer then, wrote to the Bank, noting that YFR had reconsidered her position, and wanted to return to work rather than leave before her fixed term employment finished. By separate email a without prejudice proposal was made. The Bank did not respond to the first email but responded to the second one on the assumption that the second email superseded the first one. The Court accepted this considering YFR’s lawyer did not follow up with the Bank for a response and held YFR was not disadvantaged by this action . Remedies Compensation for hurt and humiliation: YFR sought $50,000 as compensation but the Court awarded $15,000, reduced by 15% for her contribution to $12,750. Other Claims: Claims for lost earnings of $105,000 arising from not being able to work for 18 months after termination and that YFR had to move to Australia to find work were raised. However YFR was paid until the end of her FTA and as a result did not lose wages. As such the claim for lost wages failed. Key Takeaways for Employers Informal Meetings: When matters are unlikely to progress to more serious outcomes or formal measures, employers can meet with an employee to discuss any minor employment concerns for the purposes of facilitating a constructive discussion. However, employers should be consider the employee’s possible reaction or impact for them, with the information being delivered, in deciding how best to arrange these and whether support should be allowed. Employers are expected to tailor their approach to the employee’s needs, as part of good faith duties, and this case highlights the importance of considering, for example, neurodivergence and other relevant factors for an employee. Sensitive Meetings: When holding sensitive meetings where there may be a need to commence a formal process or discuss potential changes to employment arrangements with employees, ensure that there is clear communication on the purpose of the meeting, and provide the option of having a support person and/or independent advice ahead of the meeting. Asking an employee to go on leave: Paid special leave or suspension should be proposed to the employee with sufficient time to comment and obtain advice before any arrangements are agreed to, and the lawfulness of this depends on contractual entitlements to this and the circumstances. Always Document: Ensure you provide your employee with clear documentation such as a meeting invitation letter, providing them sufficient information on the purpose of the meeting and what will be discussed. All meetings with employees should be documented with meeting notes to prevent any misunderstandings or confusion on what was discussed. How can we help? Need advice on how best to engage with employees or on strategy to address concerns? We can help! Contact our team for more information. 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.

2025 has been a year of sweeping reform, and as we close out the year, we know for sure that there will be more changes to come across workplace law in 2026. In 2025, minimum wage climbed, parental leave expanded, privacy obligations tightened, and pay transparency became law. Immigration rules shifted, KiwiSaver changes were locked in, and major proposals are queued for 2026. Our view is the changes so far are creating a lot of “noise” for employers, and compliance with these will be a focus for 2026 with a number of pretty major and all new concepts becoming law. However, not much has happened that really “moves the needle” for employers in terms of making managing workplace obligations easier, which is perhaps surprising given the current government make up. At high level, we recommend employers stay informed on the laws which will be enacted and take effect in 2026, because the signalled shifts really are in the need to know category, and employers will need advice about what this means for their workplace and to ensure they have a strategy to address the changes. Employment Top highlights for Employment are: The Contractor Gateway test – this will mean all contractor arrangements need review, to take advantage of the certainty that will be available and to avoid the currently very common contractor status challenges (like, the Uber case recently decided by the Supreme Court) Holidays Act Reform - a new Employment Leave Act is on the horizon, with draft legislation expected early 2026, likely allowing two-year implementation window. This will affect all employers PG exclusions for high earners – all employers with employees in the high earning category will need to decide strategically how they’ll handle this, including considering what it will mean for disputes with those who are excluded Compulsory KiwiSaver contribution increases – this is coming in April 2026, and impacts the 75% of employers who do not take a “total remuneration” approach Ending employment by agreement – Select Committee changes have added strict regulations to the concepts introduced in this private members bill, and if it passes, employers will need to carefully work through how they can take lawfully advantage of having direct discussions about ending employment with employees A number of changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill have now been made following Select Committee review, with progression to enactment expected in early 2026. Privacy From May 2026, new Privacy Principle IPP3A will require businesses to notify individuals when collecting personal information indirectly. This change strengthens transparency and accountability in data handling and applies to all agencies, including private employers, and we’re seeing more and more privacy complaints and claims, especially where employees are progressing PGs or challenging employment process. Employers need to understand privacy duties, have appropriate policies in place, and ensure staff are trained on what this all means for them. Immigration The Immigration Amendment Act introduced broader levy settings and compliance powers. Ministers now have authority to cancel residence visas for security threats and grant visas in exceptional cases. Deportation liability for residence visa holders convicted of crimes was clarified, and a new offence prohibits charging migrants premiums for employment. Beyond this, immigration policy is evolving. Skilled Migrant Category changes will shorten work periods and create new pathways for those without bachelor’s degrees (policy due early 2026). The Business Investor Visa offers residence for those investing at least NZD $1 million and meeting tax residency requirements. Active Investor Plus Visa applications reached 491 by December and are expected to grow. Accredited Employer Work Visa rules shifted to market rates, with redesigned Job Check forms, increased compliance checks, and new NOL roles for future ANZSCO transitions. Health and Safety Last but not least, Government has signalled broad policy changes to health and safety for 2026, but we are waiting for details on what this may mean and for any draft Bills. Watch this space! Message for Employers 2026 promises further reform with Government indicating it want to implement these changes pre-Election. We therefore recommend: · Auditing current policies and agreements. · Update payroll and compliance systems. · Auditing the immigration policies and clauses. · Seeking legal advice to inform strategy to deal with the changes · Providing training for staff on what these mean for them and their roles Looking to stay ahead of workplace law changes? Our upcoming webinar series will cover a range of workplace law topics. Don’t miss the chance to join these sessions and get practical insights from our experts. Learn more and see the full schedule in our article here . For advice or for more information regarding the above, please contact our team . Disclaimer: This article provides commentary on employment law topics and should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice for any questions specific to your workplace.

Keeping up with the many and varied changes in workplace law is a challenge for employers and employees alike. In 2026, our team of experts will be sharing their knowledge and answering your questions on a range of workplace law topics in a series of webinars – details below:

As we draw closer to the holidays, employers are faced with the challenge that is the Holidays Act 2003 and determining their employee’s entitlements during the festive season. While we await proposed changes to this tricky law, for now, we cover key need to know tips on the Holidays Act 2003 and the coming holiday period. Closedown If your business operates a closedown period, and your employment agreements includes a clause explaining this, employees can be required to use annual holidays or take unpaid leave during your closure. Closedown periods are available to employers provided they are “customarily” used, and employees are given at least 14 days’ notice of the dates of this. A business can only have one closedown period a year. Annual holidays: Employees who are entitled to annual holidays, can be required to take these with 14 days’ notice, if agreement as to the timing of holidays cannot be reached. Public holidays: Employees are entitled to be paid for any public holiday, even if they don’t work that day, if it falls on a day that would have ‘otherwise been a working day’ ( OWD ) for them. The following public holidays, which all fall on weekdays this year, will be observed during the festive season: Christmas Day Thursday 25 December 2025 Boxing Day Friday 26 December 2025 New Year’s Day Thursday 1 January 2026 Day after New Year’s Day Friday 2 January 2026 Where an employee works on a public holiday, they must be paid at the employee’s ordinary pay plus half that amount again for time worked, and if the public holiday is on an OWD, they will also be entitled to a full day alternative holiday. What is an OWD?: Not sure if your employee would have otherwise been working? The Holidays Act 2003 lists factors to consider including, what the employment agreement states, what the work patterns are, any rosters or systems in place, whether the employee works only when work is available, and the reasonable expectations of the parties. An OWD may vary between employees, therefore employers will need to review each employee’s situation practically. On call on public holidays: If an employee is on call on a public holiday, on an OWD and is called out, they will be entitled to a full day alternative holiday. If an employee is on call on a public holiday, on an OWD, and is not called out, they will be entitled to a full day alternative holiday if they have not practically had a holiday on that day because of the restrictions imposed by their being on call. Determining this will involve considering what the employee is practically required to do to remain available to attend call outs during the day. Alternative Holiday If an employee is required to work on a public holiday, they will be entitled to a whole day off ( alternative holiday ). The purpose of an alternative holiday is for an employee who has worked a public holiday to have a day off in lieu as compensation for working on a public holiday. An employee can take payment ( cashing up ) for an alternative holiday but only after 12 months of being entitled to it. Cashing up an alternative holiday before the 12 months of entitlement will not comply with the provisions of the Holidays Act 2003. Transfer of public holidays: Employers can agree in writing with employees to transfer any public holiday to another day. The new date cannot be another public holiday and must be an OWD. Message for Employers If you would like advice regarding public holidays, annual holiday entitlements or closedowns 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.

The team at Ashcroft Mitchell McGregor wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and would like to thank you for your support during 2025. This year has been particularly exciting for us as we celebrated the opening of our new business venture. It’s a milestone that reflects not only our growth but also the strength of the relationships we’ve built. We’re thrilled about the opportunities this brings and look forward to continuing to work with you in the year ahead. Thank you for being part of our journey—we can’t wait to see what we’ll accomplish in 2026! Closedown Our offices will be closed from 1pm, 23 December 2025. We will re-open again on Monday 12 January 2026. If you require urgent assistance over this time, please contact the following people on the specified dates below: 23 December, 29 December ‑ 31 December 2025 : Kate Ashcroft: 021 548 856 5 January ‑ 9 January 2026: Christie McGregor: 021 0841 4220

Harassment, sexual harassment, and bullying are all workplace risks that must be managed under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and are obligations and potential claims under the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993. Exposure to mental health risks (bullying, harassment, and work-related stress) made up 29% of all notifications to Worksafe in the 2022-2023 period, causing it to be the second biggest reason for notification. The issue of mental health is increasingly arising in personal grievance claims too. In several recent Employment Relations Authority/Court cases, employers have been found to have unjustifiably disadvantaged and/or unjustifiably dismissed employees where they failed to respond to bullying complaints, properly investigate, consider the impact of mental health concerns or prevent employees from being mentally harmed by the workplace. Message for Employers The best way to ensure you support a mentally healthy workplace is to have comprehensive health and safety managements systems alongside robust Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination and Wellbeing Policies. If you require assistance to improve your businesses approach to mental wellbeing, our Mental Health and Wellbeing Toolkit is a great place to start as it provides employers with guidance on dealing with psychosocial hazards in the workplace (i.e., bullying, harassment, work-related stress). The toolkit is available for a fixed price of $2,500 + GST, and includes: Risk Assessment Template and Guidance for Psychosocial Hazards; Mental Health and Wellbeing policy, covering stress management, fatigue and steps that can be taken to identify and manage mental health risks in the workplace; and Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy, setting out definitions for each of these terms, examples of unacceptable behaviours and a process to follow where an incident arises. Feel like you might need some training in this area? Our team can also offer a one-hour training session , either in person or virtually at a cost of $1,500 plus GST, covering: An overview of your mental health and wellbeing obligations, including documentation and reporting; How to identify psychosocial risks; Awareness of what constitutes bullying and harassment; What practical steps should be taken; How to manage employees and what support can be offered; and Practical tips on how to manage conflict in the workplace. 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.