A private member Amendment Bill proposing to extend the minimum wage rate to independent contractors is being reviewed by New Zealand Parliament. The Bill was introduced to Parliament on Wednesday 22nd July 2015 by Labour MP David Parker and was scheduled to have its first reading later this evening.
This Bill proposes to extend the Minimum Wage Rate Act 1983 to include independent contractors which would allow them to get paid a rate equal to the current minimum wage.
Currently, Independent Contractors negotiate their own wage rates with the organisation/s they are working with.
“If passed the Bill will help people like contract cleaners who are currently falling through the cracks. Couriers, telemarketers and others who are contracted to do a large amount of works in limited time will also be protected.” Mr Parker said in a press conference.
Other examples of workers that Mr Parker included in the Bill were pamphlet and newspaper deliverers, security guards, telemarketers, truck drivers, fast food delivery people and those who provide personal home-care support. These types of workers usually get paid under a contract for service (for a full list of potential industries affected please see end of the article).
Interestingly, New Zealand was the first country in the world to implement the minimum wage on a national level. This occurred in 1894 when the New Zealand government introduced the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894.
“Those currently at risk are not employees, are not in unions, and are often the least powerful in society” the author of the bill went on to say.
Previously in 2007, NZ Parliament passed the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Act 2007 which dictated that remuneration for employees in training as well as those aged 16-17 years old could not be lower than 80% of the adult minimum wage.
Sam Huggard, Secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU), said that the Bill, if passed, would guarantee that contractors were paid at a rate at least equivalent to the minimum wage.
“Far too many workers find themselves in situations where contracting arrangements are used to get around statutory minimum pay. This kind of sub-contracted work is seeing more and more New Zealanders with contracts where they cannot possibly earn a living wage in the number of hours required to complete the job. This Bill would close that loophole” Mr Huggard said.
Schedule 2 of the bill outlines the following services that may be affected (i.e. provided under a contract for service):
building and construction services
cleaning services
courier services
food catering services
fast-food delivery services
newspaper or pamphlet delivery services to letterboxes:
personal home-care support to an individual in the individual’s house
public entertainment services as an actor, musician, or singer
the manufacture of clothing, footwear, or textiles
telemarketing services
market research services
licensed security guard services under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010
services in the forestry industry related to planting, pruning, or felling
truck-driving services delivering goods
Other Proposed Changes
The Bill also proposes that:
An independent Contractor, or a Labour Inspector may be able to commence an action in the Employment Relations Authority if the Independent Contractor is not receiving a rate equivalent to the minimum wage rate provided. Currently, an Independent Contractor has limited legal options and would need to take their issue to the Disputes Tribunal.
The Organisation will need to keep a remuneration record for the Independent Contractor, which they are not currently required to do.
The Bill proposes to rename the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to “Minimum Wage and Remuneration Act 1983”. It remains to be seen how Parliament votes on this proposed amendment. We’ll make sure to keep you up to date on how the debate pans out.
If your organisation has independent contractors working with you and you are concerned about how the proposed Bill may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
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.
Copeland Ashcroft employment law specialist Charlie Arms-Harris speaks to Jonny Turner on the Hokonui Muster around Mondayisation of public holidays and staff leave entitlements coming into the festive season.
LISTEN HERE
New Alcohol Limits
Changes are coming. The Land Transport Amendment Bill 2013 passed its third and final reading on 30 July 2014.
The Bill decreases the legal breath alcohol limit for adult drivers from 400 micrograms (mcg) to 250 mcg per litre of breath. The blood alcohol limit will reduce from 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, to 50mg.
Drivers who fail an evidential breath test between 251 and 400 mcg of alcohol per litre of breath will receive an infringement notice with a $200 infringement fee and 50 demerit points. Those over 400 mcg will continue to face criminal sanctions as is currently the case.
The lower limits will apply from 1 December 2014.
The zero alcohol limit for drivers under the age of 20 years remains the same.
Drug and Alcohol Policy
If you already have a Drug and Alcohol policy in place in your workplace, take some time to compare the limits you have with the changing law; if they are 400 mcg or over, consider amending these to reflect the new limit of 250mcg. In an inherently dangerous workplace it could even be justified to have a zero tolerance to alcohol.
If you don’t have a policy, consider putting one in place. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 an employer is required to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of their employees, contractors or visitors while in the workplace. The Courts have concluded one practicable step is to have a drug and alcohol policy for your workplace, especially in a safety sensitive work environment.
Stuck with what to put in a policy? Consider pre-employment testing, reasonable cause, post incident/accident and random testing for both drugs and alcohol. Please note random testing should only be conducted on employees who are in ‘safety sensitive’ positions. A policy should comprehensively set out when, how and what you will be testing for, what will amount to a positive test and how will a positive test be treated.
Consultation
While important from a safety perspective, the Court has determined that drug and alcohol testing is inherently invasive and compromising of an employee’s dignity and privacy. Before putting a policy in place or amending a policy you MUST consult with your employee’s.
Consultation involves more than merely notifying your employees of a document; you must provide your employees with an opportunity to comment and respond in a meaningful way and give them a reasonable opportunity to do so. You are then expected to make a genuine effort to accommodate the views of your employees.
Failure to make a comprehensive policy or consult with your employees will result in an invalid policy. Any subsequent testing in reliance on an invalid test would be unjustified and you will likely face challenge.
If you require any assistance in creating a workplace policy, amending your current policy or consulting with staff the team are happy to help.
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 Court of Appeal says NO.
In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Pacific Flight Catering Ltd v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZCA 386 businesses who either purchase a business or win a contract that involves the statutory requirement to take on vulnerable employees will need to ensure that the cost of paying their entitlements is included in the purchase price of the company/contract or else it will now be coming out of their own pocket.
FACTS OF THE CASE
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand won a flight catering contract, previously held by Pacific Flight Catering Limited. This triggered an obligation under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for LSG to take on vulnerable employees of Pacific. LSG was required to recognise employees accrued entitlements not taken or exchanged for payment before the date of transfer. LSG argued though it is entitled to be reimbursed by Pacific under the common law action of compulsion of law. The High Court upheld LSG’s claim ordering Pacific to reimburse the cost of the entitlements. Pacific appealed the decision.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
Nothing in Part 6A states that the old employer remains liable to its transferring employees for their pre-transfer entitlements nor are they liable to reimburse the new employer when the new employer pays the transferring employees their pre-transfer entitlements.
There is no reason to believe that Parliament intended that the old employer maintained some on-going responsibility to the transferring employee to the extent that the employee could then look to the old employer for payment in the event of a failure to pay by the new employer.
There is a Bill before Parliament presently that would provide the default position that, if the parties do not agree otherwise, the old employer will be required to pay an amount to the new employer to reflect the obligation taken on by the new employer for certain pre-transfer entitlements of transferring employees. The fact that Parliament is now addressing the issue supports the proposition that the current legislation fails to do so.
HELD: Under Part 6A an old employer does not have any obligation to pay for pre-transfer entitlements that have accrued to its former employees who have transferred to a new employer. LSG must pay for the cost associated with entitlements owed to Pacific’s former vulnerable employees that were transferred to it when it won the contract.
EFFECT: All incoming employers must pay for the accrued entitlements of vulnerable employees that transfer to them. The price of the business/contract should be negotiated with an increase in value to reflect this.
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. We recommend that you obtain legal advice specific to your situation before proceeding and would be happy to help in this regard.
By Lucia Vincent
Paying properly for public holidays beats paying penalties if you don’t, writes employment lawyer Lucia Vincent.
Many employees watch what they are paid closely and payments for public holidays are no exception.
Employees are likely to ask questions if they suspect they’ve been short-changed. An employer should recognise and understand what employees are entitled to when they work on public holidays if they are to avoid the embarrassment and cost of getting it wrong.
What Public Holidays?
New Zealand recognises 11 public holidays each year including upcoming ANZAC Day on Thursday 25 April 2013. Parliament designated this date to commemorate that New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen gave their lives for their country. 1 Generally you must observe this day and other public holidays on the date they fall unless an exception applies.
Since 1 April 2011 you can agree to observe public holidays on different days if a written agreement identifies which public holiday is being transferred and the new calendar date it is being transferred to (or an “identifiable” day such as Easter Tuesday). But the new date can’t be another public holiday and must be a normal working day for the employee. 2 For example, if an employee normally works Thursdays, you could agree to transfer this year’s ANZAC Day to the following Thursday.
In any lawful exchange, entitlements transfer fully to the new day. But an employer can’t do it solely to avoid obligations or if it reduces the total number of paid public holidays an employee otherwise gets. If all that swapping seems a bit much – an employer can promulgate a policy prohibiting exchanges. 3
Payments
Employers may have to pay staff even if they don’t work. 4 Using next week as an example, an employee who normally works on a Thursday will be entitled to their normal pay for ANZAC Day even if they don’t work. But if they do work, they get their normal pay, plus half that amount again, for the hours they actually work. They also get an alternative holiday (commonly called a day in lieu) to take later on. 5
An employee who doesn’t normally work on a Thursday will only become entitled to be paid if they actually work. Then they get their normal pay, plus half that amount again, for hours they actually work.
Drilling down, normal pay means the employee’s relevant or average daily pay for the public holiday. 6 Relevant daily pay means the amount of pay an employee would have received had they worked. It includes regular payments like commission and overtime rates if the employee would have received them had they worked. So if an employee normally works and is paid for 10 hours on a Thursday – this is what they should be paid for.
If an employee’s daily pay varies within the pay period relating to the public holiday (or if its not possible or practicable to calculate the relevant daily pay), then an employer can use a daily average of the employee’s gross earnings for the previous 52 calendar weeks.
Would or wouldn’t
Not sure if your staff would‘ve worked? Try to reach agreement after considering the employment agreement and work patterns. It doesn’t matter whether an employee is casual, fixed term or permanent – always ask whether “but for” the day being a public holiday, the employee would have worked. 7 The answer to this question requires you to look at your specific situation and staff. 8
In Progressive Meats Limited v Meat and Related Trades Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc (2008) 5 NZELR 219 the Employment Court considered whether staff should be paid for a public holiday. Unlike many meat processing plants the employer did not operate a seasonal shutdown but tried to provide full time continuous work for staff throughout the year. Due to fluctuations in both supply of stock and demand for production, the company compressed and expanded working weeks on notice to affected employees, to cope.
During the week when Queen’s Birthday fell, the low season and generally shorter weeks were being worked. It was not uncommon for the company to process on only 3 days enabling staff to enjoy a long weekend that included Mondays. Staff would however expect to work on a Monday unless advised otherwise, which the employer did the week prior to Queens Birthday.
The Court held that whether or not the Monday in question was a public holiday, it was unlikely that the plant would have been processing that day. Work patterns at that time of year supported the company’s claim that work would not have been offered to staff that day even if it was a public holiday. Staff were not entitled to be paid. 9
Minimum rights
The Holidays Act 2003 sets a minimum standard. An employer can provide better but not inferior conditions – even if the employee agrees to it. 10 A box of beer or generous bonus, although quite likely to be welcome, simply won’t help if you haven’t paid for public holidays properly.
An employee, Union, representative or Labour Inspector can take action to recover minimum entitlements. 11 An Inspector can decide a dispute about public holiday payments after discussing it with parties 12 and could claim a penalty against an employer of up to $20,000 where an employer failed to pay for public holidays properly. 13 In addition, interest 14 and costs may be awarded by the Employment Relations Authority against an employer at fault. Failures to rectify any shortfall brought to the employer’s attention by an employee may also lead to a personal grievance claim.
Mondayising
We already observe public holidays over Christmas and New Year on the following Monday or Tuesday if an employee doesn’t normally work during weekends (also known as “mondayising”). 15 A Member’s Bill recently passed its final reading in Parliament so that we will now also observe ANZAC Day and Waitangi Day on the following Monday if they fall during the weekend. 16
Knowledge is key
Whether you will or won’t work on ANZAC Day, make sure you know when and what your employees are entitled to. Some staff won’t be entitled to anything but you need to know why not and answer any questions in a way that you and they understand. Paying properly for public holidays beats paying penalties if you don’t.
1. Section 2 ANZAC Day Act 1966. Unless a Sunday, we observe ANZAC day until 1pm. The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 requires all shops to be closed until then, unless a shop is providing goods that the public might reasonably need to buy (such as petrol or certain foods) or falls within another exception (such as a pharmacies or art galleries). Shops risk a fine of up to $1,000 if they open in breach of this. 2 Section 44B Holidays Act 2003. You can also agree to redefine a public holiday to an alternative 24 hour period if the employee works a shift covering at least some time in a public holiday and that extends across midnight (section 44B Holidays Act 2003) 3. Section 44C Holidays Act 2003 4. Section 49 Holidays Act 2003 5. Section 40, 56 Holidays Act 2003 6. Sections 9-9A Holidays Act 2003 7. 44, BW Murdoch Ltd v Horn [2008] ERNZ 38 8. Section 12 Holidays Act 2003 9. 36-42, Progressive Meats Limited v Meat and Related Trades Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc (2008) 5 NZELR 219 10. Section 6 Holidays Act 2003 11. Section 74 Holidays Act 2003 12. This would at least require the Labour Inspector to discuss the matter with the relevant employer and employee, and give both an opportunity to comment on what the Inspector proposes to consider in making the determination (Section 80, Holidays Act 2003)
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.
First published in The Otago Daily Times – 19 April 2013
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/253664/employment-law-blog-paying-public-holidays
The Copeland Ashcroft Law Team recently presented a seminar roadshow on the crossover between employment law and health and safety obligations, and one of the areas of focus in this presentation was the management of drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. This article summarises some of the “need to know” basic tips from the roadshow.
Testing for drugs and alcohol at work is becoming increasingly common, especially as employers become more alert to their health and safety obligations under the new Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“Act”). The effect of drugs and alcohol on an individual is well recognised as a potential hazard in the workplace, and in fact the Act specifically refers to drugs and alcohol under the definition of ‘hazard’. Implementing a drug and alcohol policy may well be a reasonably practicable step an employer can take to ensure the workplace is healthy and safe, particularly if the workplace is considered safety sensitive.
However, drug and alcohol testing at work is still somewhat controversial, and the legal principles around it are not well settled in New Zealand yet. if not carried out fairly and reasonably in line with a clear policy, drug and alcohol testing can carry significant legal risk. It is critical that an employer has a robust testing policy that is tailored to their workplace and that, once implemented, is closely adhered to. Employers should consult with staff and unions before implementing a policy (consultation does not require agreement however), and a policy must specify what kinds of testing will be carried out.
Policy requirements:
Policies often cover testing in the following circumstances:
Pre-employment testing: Before an individual is offered a position with the employer. An offer of employment may be subject to the individual undertaking a drug and/or alcohol test and the employer being satisfied with the results;
Post-incident testing: After an accident, incident or near miss that the employee was involved in. Not every accident, incident or near miss will justify a test though, and the policy should state the specific situations when testing may be carried out. For example, when there has been an accident, incident or near miss that results in injury, damage to property, or a real risk to health and safety;
Reasonable cause testing: Where the employer or another person suspects, on reasonable grounds, that employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work. The policy should contain a list of ‘reasonable cause indicators’; and
Random testing: May only be used where for employees who undertake “safety sensitive” work.
A good policy will also set out the possible consequences if an employee returns a positive test (including what disciplinary action the employee might be subject to, and whether (and in what circumstances) rehabilitation will be offered.
While an employer cannot test an employee without their consent, the employer’s policy should describe what will happen if an employee refuses to take a test (or undermines or interferes with an employer’s attempts to test).
Because drug and alcohol testing can be risky, we highly recommend seeking advice from our team in developing and implementing a policy, and in taking action in reliance on the policy.
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 recent Employment Court decision, Greenslade v Jetstar Airways Limited [2014] NZEmpC 23 reiterates that an employer has an obligation to provide regular rest and meal breaks to its employees even when it seems impossible to do so. Failure to provide proper breaks may result in the employer having to compensate the employee.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Mr Greenslade is a pilot for Jetstar. He mainly pilots domestic flights, trans-Tasman flights and flights to Fiji. While in the air Mr Greenslade was allowed bathroom breaks and to eat while the plane was in cruise mode between ascent and descent phases. During this time the pilot was still required to monitor the operation of the aircraft.
Jetstar accepted that Mr Greenslade did not receive rest and meal breaks but set out that given the purpose of the operation was to provide a low cost, budget airline, there was no chance to have rest and meal breaks during turnaround times. They also argued they fit within the very narrow exception in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) where another enactment regulated rest and meal breaks.
THE COURT’S DECISION:
While it may be difficult and may undermine the purpose of the low cost airline, Jetstar was required to provide Mr Greenslade rest and meal breaks as prescribed in the Act. Jetstar was not exempt from these mandatory requirements. The parties were ordered to agree on compensation for the employee.
According to the Court:
A ‘rest break’ is a period where an employee is freed from the performance of his or her work duties, during the work day or a working period;
‘Meal breaks’ are different from ‘rest breaks’ and are longer than ‘rest breaks’;
A ‘meal break’ is a period that allows an employee to prepare and consume a meal;
The rest and meal breaks are to be taken during a work period and not periods of time between periods of work.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?
Employers should provide all employees with a genuine break from their tasks and the opportunity to rest, eat and drink, and attend to personal matters. The employer must provide rest and meal breaks as follows:
10 minute paid 30 minute unpaid
Hours Worked
0 – 2 – –
2 – 4 1 –
4 – 6 1 1
6 – 8 2 1
These breaks can be taken at a time agreed between the employee and the employer. If they cannot come to an agreement the breaks will be in the middle of the work period or at even intervals throughout. It is also important to note that the Authority has the power to impose a penalty should the employer fail to provide the above breaks.
We appreciate it is difficult for some types of Businesses to meet these prescriptive requirements. We encourage employers to plan ahead, ensure enough staff are rostered on to allow for breaks, maybe even create a ‘breaks roster’ to give some certainty and consistency. Find a system that works for you and your business. Failure to provide breaks can cost you in the long run.
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.
Copeland Ashcroft Law recently presented at the Primary Sector Conference, New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants in Hamilton. To read this paper on Salaries and Seasons – An Employment Law Perspective please click on the pdf below
File Download (PDF):
Paper – Salaries and Seasons – Lucia Vincent – May 2014 – updated July 2014 (2)_0
By Lucia Vincent
Bullying hurts. Most know the sting of a hurtful jibe or playful punch.
Being teased as a child forced me to grow a thick skin. I don’t wince if someone calls me freckle face any more. But it becomes more sinister when adults are involved; especially at work where many of us spend most of our waking day.
Why should employers care?
Because it pays to. Bullies harm people, productivity and ultimately the bottom line. Like any unidentified hazard, bullies cause casualties before you even know they exist. An employer can no longer pretend that hurt feelings won’t cost them financially.
An employee may raise a personal grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal even if they have resigned because of a bully – an employee forced to resign because their employer failed to take their concerns seriously can claim they have been constructively dismissed. The Labour Court called this the “… wolf of dismissal in the sheep’s clothing of resignation.” i
A forced resignation could result from an employer behaving in a way that seriously damaged their employee’s trust and confidence in them. An employer may undermine an employee’s trust by failing to take all practicable steps to ensure their safety at work. ii Think of a situation where an employer fails to follow up a complaint of bullying behaviour causing the employee to become depressed due to work-related stress. Bullying in this sense is hazardous to your employees’ health and has to be dealt with under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.
Bullying or just plain rude?
Forgetting to wish your workmate “Happy Birthday” or providing constructive criticism about an employee’s performance are unlikely to meet the threshold in the absence of something more calculated or unfair. The Employment Relations Authority has accepted that bullying is behaviour that is:
… repeated and carried out with a desire to gain power or exert dominance and an intention to cause fear and distress. This behaviour usually includes elements of personal denigration and disdain of the person subject to it. It is intended to control the behaviour or actions of its target in particular ways. iii
Isolated incidents of rudeness are unlikely to support a constructive dismissal claim. The Labour Court stated: … the law does not compel parties to a contract to do more than perform it and it does not require them to perform it politely, nor is this Court empowered to enforce courtesy in the workplace, no matter how desirable in that environment that quality undoubtedly is.
Not my problem?
Clearly an employer is responsible if they bully an employee directly. But an employer is also responsible for the actions of an employee who has authority over another (such as a manager). iv An employer must also ensure that members of the public and independent contractors do not create a hazardous working environment for their staff.
Managers with a domineering, blunt and abrupt management style shouldn’t assume staff can bat it back to avoid their obligations either. It is not acceptable for a manager to expect an employee to “sling it back” even if other staff do, to keep an aggressive exchange even. v
This is especially so if a manager goes beyond generally accepted management norms. Similarly, an employer may not be justified in readily accepting a resignation where an employee faces difficulty dealing with a well known hazard that the employer has failed to provide training on – like the aggressive dogs that Power Meter Readers might face. vi
The risk of bullying from the public can also pose a risk worth remedying. For example, Council employees have been held to have reasonably objected to wearing name badges that displayed their surnames due to their concern that displaying their surnames could enable disgruntled members of the public to track them down to their home address and confront them. vii In the case referred to, the Employment Court accepted that:
It was not being unduly alarmist to accept that there is a reasonable possibility that they could be subjected to violence or harassment at home as a result of being identified at work by a hostile member of the public. viii
Removing surnames from badges amounted to an “entirely practicable” step for the employer to take; the requirement to wear badges with surnames, unreasonable. ix
Dealing with it
Increase awareness of the problem posed by bullies in the workplace. Employers should start by checking that a robust and realistic policy on bullying is in place, changes consulted on, its contents regularly reviewed and that managers apply it consistently.
Clearly identify bullying as a hazard and aim to establish a culture that treats complaints seriously and encourages employees to report concerning behaviour – whether as a witness, victim or a bully. Employers shouldn’t wait until a serious problem arises before putting in place systems to deal with it.
References: i At 803, New Zealand Woollen Workers IUOW v Distinctive Knitwear New Zealand Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 791. ii Section 6, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. iii At 49, Menelda v Publicis Mojo Ltd [2007] NZERA Auckland AA403/07. iv Section 103(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 v See Edmonds v Attorney General [1998] 1 ERNZ 1 vi Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers Industrial Union Of Workers (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 168. vii Makeham v New Plymouth District Council [2005] ERNZ 49. viii Ibid, at 33. ix Ibid, at 40.
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.
First published in The Otago Daily Times – 3 December 2012
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/237569/law-blog-why-employers-should-care-about-bullying
Copeland Ashcroft Law is very pleased to announce that it has appointed Charlie Arms-Harris as an Associate working out of its Queenstown office. Having worked as a senior solicitor for the firm since 2011, Charlie is well known and respected in the Otago and Southland regions as an employment, immigration and health and safety lawyer with a proven track record.
Over the course of the last half decade, Charlie has amassed considerable experience as a law practitioner which quickly saw her elevation to the position of senior solicitor. She is adept at all facets of employment law, including the development and review of employment agreements and policy, providing guidance through restructuring and redundancy processes, and interpreting employment and holidays legislation.
Charlie regularly represents clients at mediation and before the Employment Relations Authority, and provides expert assistance with disciplinary, performance and personal grievance issues.
Charlie also advises on health and safety matters, and is experienced in dealing with issues arising from immigration status.
“Charlie has demonstrated her dedication to our office and clients over an extended period of time. She is capable, committed and a valued member of the team; it is a pleasure to welcome her as our newest Associate and we look forward to seeing her career continue to flourish at Copeland Ashcroft Law,” says Janet Copeland, Principal of Copeland Ashcroft Law.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/copeland-ashcroft-law-appoints-new-associate-191081