And do they comply?

 

A recent report from Statistics New Zealand suggests that nearly 1 in 10 employees do not have a written employment agreement. Of those who do have written employment agreements, it’s probably fair to say that a proportion of those are not up-to-date. Recent changes to employment law also mean some previously compliant agreements may need revising.

Whether you are an employer or an employee, you should check your employment agreement and make sure it complies with the minimum requirements. If it doesn’t, employees may be missing out on entitlements, and employers could be exposing themselves to increased penalties and claims from employees. Directors and senior business managers can now also be held personally accountable.

Minimum requirements

The Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) requires that every employee must have an employment agreement and that agreement must be in writing whether it is for a permanent, fixed term or casual position. The agreement must include the following:

  • Names of the employee and employer
  • A description of the work to be performed by the employee
  • An indication of where the employee will perform the work
  • Any agreed hours of work or, if no hours are agreed, an indication of the arrangements relating to the times the employee is to work
  • The wages or salary payable to the employee, and
  • A plain language explanation of the services available for the resolution of employment relationship problems, including a reference to the period of 90 days within which a personal grievance must be raised.

Employers must retain a copy of the employment agreement.

Within the ERA, there are further specific requirements in relation to certain types of clauses. For example, if the agreement includes a trial period clause, there are specific requirements which must be met if it is to be relied on to end employment within 90 days.

Recent changes

The Employment Standards Bill was enacted earlier this year, with effect from 1 April 2016. It introduced a suite of changes to employment law including some which mean existing employment agreements will need updating. It also toughened the penalties for employers who do not comply with their obligations.

Some of these changes are summarised below. Please see us if you require a more detailed explanation of the changes and what they may mean for you.

Parental leave

Parental leave eligibility was extended to ‘primary carers’ who can include grandparents, aunts and uncles. Those employees on casual and fixed term agreements are also eligible.

Leave entitlements have been extended, and there is now also the option of agreeing to ‘keeping in touch’ arrangements. These are where employees can return to work on a limited basis for up to 40 hours (total) during their leave without losing their leave entitlements. This allows employees to keep up-to-date with any training or changes in the workplace, and to maintain their social and professional bonds.

Zero-hour contracts

‘Zero-hour contracts’ is a colloquial term for employment contracts which require an employee to be available for work, but don’t offer any guaranteed hours or compensate the employee for being on-call. Zero-hour contracts are now prohibited.

Where an employer and employee agree the hours that are to be worked, this must be recorded in the employment agreement. Where particular hours are not agreed, the agreement needs to give an indication of the hours.

Employers who want to be able to require employees to be available for extra work must include an ‘availability’ provision in the employment agreement. This must set out minimum guaranteed hours of work, and any period which the employee is required to be available above the guaranteed hours. Employment agreements cannot contain an availability provision unless the employer has genuine reasons for requiring it and the employee is reasonably compensated for making themselves available.

If the employment agreement doesn’t comply with these requirements, the employee cannot be required to work more than the agreed hours and cannot be treated adversely if they refuse to do this.

Deductions from wages

Currently, employers need the express consent of their employee to deduct any amounts from wages (other than PAYE, etc). Employment agreements commonly contain an agreement to this effect so that the employer does not need to obtain consent every time a deduction needs to be made.

Now, even if the employment agreement contains such a clause, an employer must still consult with their employee before making a deduction. There is also a prohibition on making unreasonable deductions from wages, even if the employee consents to them. An example of an unreasonable deduction might be in relation to theft of the employer’s property by a customer where the employee had no control over it.

Secondary employment

Employment agreements often contain limitations on an employee’s ability to undertake work for other people. These clauses are now subject to a number of limitations.

It’s only permissible to include such a clause if the employer has genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds, and those reasons are stated in the employment agreement. Genuine reasons can include:

  • Protecting commercially sensitive information or intellectual property rights, or the employer’s reputation, or
  • Preventing a conflict of interest that cannot be managed without such a restriction.

A secondary employment clause can only prohibit or restrict other work to the extent necessary having regard to the reasons set out in the agreement.

For agreements that were entered into before 1 April 2016, employers have until 1 April 2017 to remove or amend clauses in existing agreements which don’t comply.

It’s important to get it right

The Employment Standards Bill also made other changes which emphasise the importance of employment agreements:

  • Record keeping requirements have been clarified
  • Penalties have increased
  • Employers can be publically named if they fail to meet minimum employment standards, and
  • People other than the employer (for example, directors and senior managers) can be held liable.

Failing to meet minimum standards can result in penalties and infringement notices being issued. It can also have a significant effect, for example, on an employer’s ability to dismiss an employee.

Check your agreements

This is a good time for all employers and employees to check their employment agreements to ensure they comply with the minimum standards set out above. Employers may also have policies which may need updating.

If your employment agreement doesn’t comply with the new legislation, talk to your employee or employer about amending it to bring it up-to-date. We have experts who can assist.

 

Used by permission, Copyright of NZ Law Limited, 2017

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance with this, or with any other Employment matters, please contact  Hannah Carey – hannahcarey@parryfield.com or any of the team at Parry Field.

The Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017 came into effect on 19 May 2017, introducing significant changes to the Education Act 1989. Some commentators have described the changes as the most significant changes to New Zealand’s education system since the introduction of Tomorrows Schools.

 

Key changes that came into force on 19 May 2017 include:

Introduction of National Education and Learning Priorities

The Minister of Education now has authority to issue  a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) for the early childhood and compulsory education sectors. School Boards of Trustees must have particular regard to the NELP in their strategic planning.

The announced intention is for the first NELP to be issued in 2018. It will be interesting to see what range of priorities are included in the NELP.

Clarification of Role of Board of Trustees

The role and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees are now set out in detail in Schedule 6 of the Education Act 1989.

Previously, the objectives of the Board of Trustees were summarised in section 75. Prior to 2013, section 75 stated that, subject to the general law of New Zealand, a school’s board had ‘complete discretion to control the management of the school as it thinks fit’. In 2013, this section was amended to state that a school’s board ‘must perform its functions and exercise its powers in such a way as to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement’.

Section 75 has now been completely replaced. The new section 75 does not relate to Boards of Trustees at all. It is now in a part of the Education Act that relates to communities of learning.

The key objectives of the Board of Trustees are now described in clause 5 of Schedule 6. The primary objective is still stated to be ‘to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement’. The statement that the Board of Trustees ‘has complete discretion to control the management of the school as it thinks fit‘ has been removed.

Clause 5 of schedule 6 also sets out a list of things that the Board of Trustees must do to meet its primary objective. These are:

  1. ensure that the school—
    1. is a physically and emotionally safe place for all students and staff; and
    2. is inclusive of and caters for students with differing needs; and
  2. have particular regard to any statement of National Education and Learning Priorities issued under section 1A; and
  3. comply with its obligations under sections 60A (in relation to curriculum statements and national performance measures), 61 (in relation to teaching and learning programmes), and 62 (in relation to monitoring of student performance); and
  4. if the school is a member of a community of learning that has a community of learning agreement under section 72, comply with its obligations under that agreement as a member of that community; and
  5. comply with all of its other obligations under this or any other Act.

Increased Range of intervention options

The Minister and Secretary of Education now have an increased range of options for intervening in schools. New intervention options include case conferences, specialist audits, performance notices and statutory appointees (to Board of Trustees).

Clearer Framework for Communities of Learning (COLs)

The Act clarifies the process for approval of a Community of Learning and for entry into an agreement on the activities the COL will undertaking.

The Community of Learning concept was already in place prior to the passing of these amendments, but it is probably an improvement to have the COL framework clearly set out in the legislation.

Management of Enrolment Schemes

The Secretary of Education can now implement an enrolment scheme for a school if the school fails to put one in place within a reasonable time after being asked to do so.

Previously, the Ministry of Education could ask a school to implement an enrolment scheme, but did not have the authority to implement one itself for a school that was slow in responding.

New Purpose Provision for closure and merger of schools

Closure and merger of schools is nearly always a controversial issue, and is an area where the government is frequently criticised for failing to properly consult with the school community and take its concerns into account.

A new section 145AAA introduces objectives to guide decision making on establishment, closure and merger of schools. The objectives are to:

  • enable the provision of a schooling network that assists parents to meet their obligations to enrol their children at school;
  • assist the efficient and effective use of the Government’s investment in schooling; and
  • recognise the role of diversity in the provision of schooling, including the provision of Māori-medium education.​

Enabling the Minister to combine school boards of trustees in certain circumstances

Before these amendments were made, the Education Act already permitted multiple schools to have combined BoTs and one principal for multiple schools – section 110.

The Minister can now initiate the process to combine BoTs if the Minister has reasonable cause to believe that there are serious problems with the governance of 1 or more of the schools or institutions concerned; and those problems could be addressed by the combined board.

The Minister must first consult the Board of Trustees and Proprietor of the affected schools.

Updating the legislative framework for state integrated schools

One of the biggest changes in the Amendment Act relates to Integrated Schools.

The Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 has been repealed, with all relevant provisions being incorporated directly into the Education Act 1989 in a new part 33.

The Ministry of Education has said that the intention was not to change the substance of the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act. The language has been modernised in places, but in substance the PSCI provisions are unchanged except that new provisions have been added:

  • requiring proprietors to provide financial and other information to the Crown to improve decision-making when issues arise.
  • introducing new criteria to guide decision-making by proprietors.
  • creating a bespoke merger process for state-integrated schools.

Establishing a Competence Authority for teachers

The competence authority was initially created under the Education Council’s rules in 2016, but without specific recognition and powers under the Education Act. The role of the competence authority is now specifically recognised in the Act.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit being given back to the source. Contact Kris Morrison at krismorrison@parryfield.com to request this or for any other questions. Copyright © Parry Field Lawyers 2017.

This list of UN sustainable development goals is quite interesting – both inspiring and aspirational – have you had a look at them?

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

I wonder how bearing in mind even some of those goals might impact on businesses (and not for profits) when they come to make decisions about strategic direction and the future of their organisation.

What do you think? What is missing or should be emphasised?

Approval is needed where an “overseas person” acquires sensitive New Zealand assets and that includes where the investor is buying a tech company.

 

Normally if the purchase is of a start-up then the thresholds will not be triggered but it is also possible that a business may own “sensitive land” and in such a situation there is a procedure which needs to be followed.  If you have a tech business that you are looking to sell then it pays to know what the hoops are that your purchaser may need to jump through.

 

This article describes the key points about the process to be aware of in advance. 

 

 

From our experience in obtaining OIO approval we have drawn together the following points which answer the key questions an investor has about the process and steps required.

1. Who is the OIO? The Overseas Investment Act 2005 (OIA) is administered and enforced by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) which processes the applications made. It is based in Wellington and its team is growing quickly as it deals with more applications and enforcement.

2. When is consent needed? Consent is required for an “overseas person”. In basic terms that means a person who is not an NZ citizen or a person ordinarily resident in NZ. However, it is worth discussing individual circumstances as it may be complicated to work out if a person/entity qualifies.

3. What about related parties back overseas? Even if the entity making the purchase is not an “overseas person” they may be an “associate” of an overseas person. If, for example, someone overseas is controlling their actions or funding the purchase. If so, then approval will still be needed.

4. What level of control are you talking about? This is a very wide definition and can be specific or general, indirect or direct and whether actually legally enforceable or not. It is trying to capture the individual that is acting for someone else who would need approval if they were the one that applied.

5. So what is a “sensitive” New Zealand asset? This can be complicated to determine but generally includes:

a. certain types of land such as non-urban land of 5 hectares or more (that is, most farms);

b. acquiring 25% or more ownership or controlling interest in an entity which has businesses assets worth more than $100 million (exceptions apply for Australians and some others that increase that threshold); and

c. fishing quotas.

6. I am only interested in buying land – is it sensitive? Determining if land is sensitive requires special analysis because, for example, it may include land that adjoins a reserve or public park or includes foreshore or seabed. So it may not be as simple as looking at the legal title description because you also need to look at what type of land there is surrounding it. Examples include land over 0.4 hectares that includes or adjoins reserves or historic or heritage areas, land on specified islands or if it is part of the foreshore or seabed.

If I need to apply then what do I need to show to get approval? If you are an overseas person then when you make an application you will need to satisfy:

a. Investor Test (good character, have business experience, be financially committed to that investment); and

b. Benefit to New Zealand Test.

8. How do I show Benefit to New Zealand? There are 21 criteria that the OIO will look at (eg will there be creation of new jobs). The OIO is also interested in understanding the ‘counterfactual’ – ie, what would happen if you didn’t make the investment (would someone else buy it, would they invest or not invest further money in it etc).

9. What if I am moving to New Zealand permanently, does that affect things? Yes – in that situation you may not have to satisfy the Benefit to New Zealand test.

10. How long will all this take? The OIO will categorise the application into one of three types and they will aim to respond within 30 – 70 working days, depending on the category of application. However, there is no statutory timeframe for the decision to be made so it could take less or more time, depending on the situation. The OIO may also ask questions of the applicant which can delay the process so it is really important to get the application right when it is first submitted. Last year 22% of applications were initially rejected as they lacked information or were of poor quality.

In our experience the OIO process does take time to comply with but it is fairly straightforward. If you have questions about any of the topics mentioned above then we would be happy to discuss your situation with you.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation.  Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit being given back to the source. Contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com to request this or for any other questions. Copyright © Parry Field Lawyers 2017.

The Selwyn district continues to grow and at Parry Field Lawyers we are proud to be part of the local community.

Our office on Rolleston Drive has been open since late 2016 and beyond our Rolleston team we have a number of others at Parry Field including partners Steven Moe and Paul Owens who all live locally in the Selwyn district.

Our clients appreciate the convenience of being able to avoid a longer drive into the city.  Get in touch if you are wanting to learn more about the services we can offer you.

We have a diverse and experienced team and can represent your interests across a broad range of matters from property to disputes, commercial leasing or contracts to sale and purchase agreements.

Feel free to drop us a line at Parry Field Rolleston:

You can contact Partners Paul Owens or Steven Moe  or Solicitor  Cora Granger.

O

We went to a seminar today put on by UCE at Greenhouse in Christchurch on the Future of Innovation.  Here is a short summary of what Bill Reichert from Garage Technology Ventures said about the top things learned over his career in Silicon Valley.

Great insights – what can we learn to improve the Start-up ecosystem here in Christchurch? 

 

 

Top 10 lessons from Silicon Valley

  1. Focus on innovation (compared to old mind set of a focus on invention) – few in Silicon Valley built their business on the technology they invented,
  2.  Build an unbalanced team (compared to building balanced team) – get different perspectives in organisation and diversity of opinion eg optimist, pessimist, realist.  Disagreement is OK.
  3. Win through collaboration (compared to win through competition) – work with others don’t try to crush competitors.
  4.  Celebrate innovators (compared to celebrate celebrities) – key to good ecosystem is to celebrate innovation so unique culture.
  5. Failure is a necessity (compared to failure not being an option) – need to try more and embrace failure.
  6. Assume increasing abundance (compared to assume increasing scarcity) – design for more abundant environment eg cheaper Nokia phone vs build expensive iPhone: mindset shift
  7. Global open innovation (compared to protecting internal innovation) – need to look externally for ideas and innovation not just within.
  8. Government gets out of the way (compared to Government driving innovation) – policy infrastructure needs to promote innovation.
  9. Everybody innovates and everyone copies (compared to where US innovates and the World copies) – easier to share information and trends.
  10. People trump technology (compared to technology drives innovation) – users need to love product so you have to have more than just a cool technology.

Bonus: focus on creating value  (compared to focus on making money) – hard to make it through tough times if only focus on money.  Need to have other purpose or reason – how will your company add value?

There are a lot of great insights there and we hope they will be useful for your business or start-up!

There was an interesting interview on the weekend NBR business show with agritech futurist Dr Rosie Bosworth.

She had a warning about New Zealand being complacent regarding the food industry. In particular, that there could be disruption from new technology in synthetic food.  She thinks that if it is ignored then this could impact New Zealand in the future and the economy could suffer if it is reliant on traditional food production like it is now.

This is a link to an earlier article she wrote on this topic:

Her conclusion is worth repeating here: “Yes, it will be painful to watch the sun setting over one of our treasured economic mainstays forming the very essence of our rural – even cultural identity. But what will be more painful for New Zealand is if we allow denial of the rapidly changing technologically led agricultural and food paradigm, and our nostalgia for pasture-based farming to paralyze our future economic progress. Despite the many palpable warning signs, it’s time to start thinking seriously about Plan B for New Zealand’s road ahead. Otherwise becoming the Detroit of Agriculture could fast become New Zealand’s nightmarish reality.”

Will be interesting to watch this space in the coming years!

Approval is needed where an “overseas person” acquires sensitive New Zealand assets. This article describes the key points about the process to be aware of in advance.

From our experience in obtaining OIO approval we have drawn together the following points which answer the key questions an investor has about the process and steps required.

Who is the OIO?

The Overseas Investment Act 2005 (OIA) is administered and enforced by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) which processes the applications made. It is based in Wellington and its team is growing quickly as it deals with more applications and enforcement.

When is consent needed?

Consent is required for an “overseas person”. In basic terms that means a person who is not an NZ citizen or a person ordinarily resident in NZ. However, it is worth discussing individual circumstances as it may be complicated to work out if a person/entity qualifies.

What about related parties back overseas?

Even if the entity making the purchase is not an “overseas person” they may be an “associate” of an overseas person. If, for example, someone overseas is controlling their actions or funding the purchase. If so, then approval will still be needed.

What level of control are you talking about?

This is a very wide definition and can be specific or general, indirect or direct and whether actually legally enforceable or not. It is trying to capture the individual that is acting for someone else who would need approval if they were the one that applied.

So what is a “sensitive” New Zealand asset?

This can be complicated to determine but generally includes:

  1. certain types of land such as non-urban land of 5 hectares or more (that is, most farms);
  2. acquiring 25% or more ownership or controlling interest in an entity which has businesses assets worth more than $100 million (exceptions apply for Australians and some others that increase that threshold); and
  3. fishing quotas.

I am only interested in buying land – is it sensitive?

Determining if land is sensitive requires special analysis because, for example, it may include land that adjoins a reserve or public park or includes foreshore or seabed. So it may not be as simple as looking at the legal title description because you also need to look at what type of land there is surrounding it. Examples include land over 0.4 hectares that includes or adjoins reserves or historic or heritage areas, land on specified islands or if it is part of the foreshore or seabed.

If I need to apply then what do I need to show to get approval?

If you are an overseas person then when you make an application you will need to satisfy:

  1. Investor Test (good character, have business experience, be financially committed to that investment); and
  2. Benefit to New Zealand Test.

How do I show Benefit to New Zealand?

There are 21 criteria that the OIO will look at (eg will there be creation of new jobs). The OIO is also interested in understanding the ‘counterfactual’ – ie, what would happen if you didn’t make the investment (would someone else buy it, would they invest or not invest further money in it etc).

What if I am moving to New Zealand permanently, does that affect things?

Yes – in that situation you may not have to satisfy the Benefit to New Zealand test.

How long will all this take?

The OIO will categorise the application into one of three types and they will aim to respond within 30 – 70 working days, depending on the category of application. However, there is no statutory timeframe for the decision to be made so it could take less or more time, depending on the situation.

The OIO may also ask questions of the applicant which can delay the process so it is really important to get the application right when it is first submitted. Last year 22% of applications were initially rejected as they lacked information or were of poor quality.

In our experience the OIO process does take time to comply with but it is fairly straightforward. If you have questions about any of the topics mentioned above then we would be happy to discuss your situation with you.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance please contact Steven Moe at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) stevenmoe@parryfield.com

 

 

There was an interesting little piece in the NBR the other day: “Silicon Valley doesn’t care if you’re a Kiwi”.  The person interviewed in Silicon Valley (Edith Yeung) said that basically the people over there are so multinational and most likely immigrants so they are not about where you are from it is all about the quality of the idea.  A couple of the key quotes:

“If you tell me you have an Uber-like company for a particular market or another food delivery company, it’s likely we would not invest.  Not because it’s not a good business, but because it’s going to be the 20thor 30th version of the same thing,  A lot of entrepreneurs show me their product and they’re excited.  But it’s really not about the product because if the founder is good, I’ll assume the product is good. The key thing is the person understands how the market works, along with the overall competition and their exact place in the world.”

I thought one of the more interesting and challenging other quotes was: “A great chef doesn’t always make a great restaurant owner”.

A few good points to pick up on there and apply to our own unique contexts – for us that is as we both deal with our clients in this area and also as we explore an idea for a new business ourselves.

 

 

Muhammad Yunus was in Christchurch this afternoon and spoke to several hundred people.  He is from Bangladesh and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work in microfinance and microcredit.  He founded Grameen Bank (http://www.grameen.com/) which focuses on loans being given to people in villages who are too poor to receive traditional bank loans.

He told us the idea began from wanting to help local people to avoid loan sharks and he thought – “why not loan the money myself”?  So he was solving an immediate problem back when he began in the 1970s.  He told us that he studied how banks operate and then he purposefully tried to do the opposite.  For example, banks usually required collateral for the loans they make but Grameen Bank do not.  Now there are 2,600 branches throughout Bangladesh with 9 million borrowers.

He also talked about social business and the idea that this could help to solve problems while still making money.  He compared this with pure charity where the money has a “one time use” as it is used and then gone compared to a social business which is sustainable.  In this context he talked about how profit might not be the only incentive for people to set up a business and that there could be other incentives – such as making people happy.  It would have been interesting to gain more insights about what form of social business might work best in a New Zealand context.

He finished by commenting on the fact that the top 1% of the population owns 99% of the world’s resources and that the wealthiest 8 people in the world own more than 50%. This concentration of wealth into ever fewer hands is what he sees as a great danger and there need to be new ways to combat this.  HIs main theme was to work to try and reverse the way the system currently runs and what motivates it to try and address this.

The session ended with some questions although I felt at the very end like there were a lot of unanswered questions and details that would be fascinating to find out more about and explore.  I was also left wondering  how the ideas, which seem to have worked well in rural impoverished Bangladesh, might apply in relatively wealthy/middle class New Zealand.

It was great to hear the challenges from a Nobel Peace Prize Winner and wonderful that the event could be hosted in Christchurch – well done to the SingularityU Christchurch (which led this) and the other partner organisations: Akina Foundation, Ministry of Awesome, OHU, Te Putahi, XCHC and CCC.