Bringing up children takes work, often a lot of work. “It takes a village to raise a child” is an African proverb that means an entire community of people must interact with children for those children to grow in a safe and healthy environment. 

Sweden is a small country that has over generations built a society where citizens are taken care of from cradle to grave through its taxpayer-funded social welfare system. In a world first, Sweden has recently extended paid parental leave to include grandparents.

In Sweden, parents already have enviable parental entitlements they can access. Between the parents they can get a paid parental benefit that can extend to 480 days (about 16 months) per child between the parents. Of those days, 390 days are calculated on a person’s full income (about 80%), the remaining 90 days are paid at a fixed rate of 180 kronor (about $NZ28) per day.

Fifty years ago, Sweden was the first country in the world to introduce paid parental leave for fathers and not just mothers. Other enviable benefits for parents include the ability to work reduced hours until the child is 8 years old, and government employees can get those reduced hours until the child turns 12.

Under the recent change to the law, grandparents can also be paid to step in to care for their grandchildren for up to 90 days for the child’s first year. Parents have to transfer some of their parental leave allowance to the child’s grandparents. A parent couple can transfer a maximum of 45 days to others while a single parent can transfer 90 days.

Commenting on Sweden’s recent change, Dr Asha Sundaram, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Auckland, said “Research suggests that children who spend time with grandparents have better behavioural and cognitive outcomes. It's also beneficial to grandparents, and not only that, there's evidence that children who spend time with extended family also have better health outcomes."

How does New Zealand compare? Eligible parents can receive paid parental leave payments for up to 26 weeks. These have recently been increased from 1 July with the maximum weekly rate for paid parental leave going from $712.17 to $754.87 gross per week. The minimum parental leave payment rate for self-employed parents has also increased from $227 to $231.50 gross per week.

“We know families are doing it hard right now", Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden said announcing the increases. "This coalition Government is committed to making sure that families and parents receive the support they need to give their new child the best start to life. Paid parental leave is one way that this is done."

At the other end of the scale, the United States is one of only a few countries that does not have a national paid maternity leave policy. The federal law provides eligible workers with up to 12 weeks of (unpaid) job-protected leave per year. At a state level, just 13 states and Washington DC provide some paid parental leave, but generally only for 3 months.

The Retirement Commission reports that already, one third of New Zealand’s workforce is aged 55+. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of people aged 65+ still working at 24%. This compares to the UK rate of 10%, Australia 12%, USA 19%, Japan 20% and Iceland 35%. Statistically, in New Zealand there are less grandparents that can assist bringing up a grandchild due to work commitments. If New Zealand were to consider extending parental leave to include grandparents, the first step would be to provide job protection for those temporarily giving up work to care for their grandchild. Like parents taking parental leave, the employer could be obliged to keep the grandparent’s job open for them while they take grandparental leave, unless it is a key position in the business, or the role becomes redundant? Consideration could also be given to the grandparents sharing in the entitlement to paid parental leave the government already provides? Both seem low cost ideas.

In New Zealand, Maori have whakatauki that express a similar sentiment to the Swedish system. He waka eke noa - a canoe which we are all in with no exception. This whakatauki implies that ‘we are all in this together’. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata! He tangata! He tangata! What is the most important thing in the world? It is people! It is people! It is people! Our children are our future – should we be doing more to assist the village to give them the best start?  Read now....

Whistleblowing is an action taken by a person, often an employee, revealing information about activity within a private or public organisation that is conisdered illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent. 

Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks and he has been persecuted for years over the release of classified military documents and videos from the United States over the war it waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighting issues such as abuse of prisoners in custody, human rights violations and civilian deaths.

In 2000, New Zealand was one of the first countries to introduce dedicated whistleblowing legislation, to protect people who report their concerns of serious wrongdoing. That legislation, the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, has recently been replaced by the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022. The then Minister for the Public Service, Chris Hipkins, said “It is more people-focused and will make the rules easier to access, understand, and use”.

In a first of its kind, last month the Employment Relations Authority released a decision concluding that a former employee of the Bank of Zealand, Melissa Bowen, was unjustifiably dismissed because she was made redundant in retaliation for raising her concerns about a senior employee at BNZ.

Since raising her concerns with BNZ in 2016 and subsequently being made redundant, Bowen has tried to pursue her claims through various challenges in the ERA, the Employment Court and the Human Rights Tribunal. Through those decisions, various non-publication orders have been made, which continue to be upheld in the most recent decision.

What is known from the decision is that Bowen became concerned about the apparent conduct of a senior manager in commercial transactions, in particular in relation to two commercial arrangements. It is also known that the ERA confirmed that the concerns about the senior manager’s business conduct met the threshold of being alleged serious wrongdoing under the then applicable Protected Disclosures Act.

In the decision, the ERA found that BNZ had unjustifiably proposed to disestablish Bowen’s role in retaliation for her whistleblowing complaint; finding that the proposed restructure had no credible commercial basis. The BNZ was also found to have failed to act in good faith in respect of one of the claims, as the senior manager who was the subject of the complaint was “misleading and deceptive” in dealing with Bowen.

Bowen made a number of other claims which were unsuccessful, including bullying, threats of dismissal for breach of confidentiality, a second claim of retaliation, and BNZ breaching its whistleblowing policy.

In commenting on the ERA decision Bowen said “For a long time I wasn't able to talk about it, I wasn't allowed to and I wanted to protect the integrity of the investigation. Now I am able to talk about it, it's quite hard because it's been a very long campaign”.

New Zealand’s updated Protected Disclosures Act now extends the definition of “serious wrongdoing” to include “serious risk to the health and safety of any individual”, which could now include instances of bullying and harassment.

Protections are clarified to include confidentiality and no employer retaliation, unfavourable treatment and victimisation as well as immunity from civil, criminal, and disciplinary proceedings.

One of the agencies that serious wrong-doing can now be reported to is the Office of the Ombudsman, which at the end of June reported that there have been 203 protected disclosures and enquiries reported to the Office far this year. The Office said the figures this year are already 58% higher than the numbers recorded a year ago. "I applaud all those people who have come forward and reported wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing in their workplaces," said Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier in a statement.

Bowen’s battle is not over yet. At both parties request, the ERA’s decision was only on the issue of liability (whether Bowen was successful or not in her claims). Any remedies that may be awarded in relation to the successful claims have yet to be determined. Also the issue of legal costs will also need to be resolved. That in itself is not clear. Bowen has been successful in some of claims, and unsuccessful in others.

It was reported by Julian Assange’s wife that he will take a dip in the sea, get some proper rest and try much-missed food as “a free man,” a day after the Australian landed home after making a plea deal with US prosecutors. Assange spent five years in a British prison fighting against extradition to the United States. Prior to that he sought refuge at Ecuador’s London embassy for nearly seven years.

Undoubtably, on the little that is known of the facts of Bowen’s whistleblowing complaint, it seems clear that she had serious concerns about certain transactions at BNZ and she tried to raise them with her employer. She lost her job over it. Her battle has been epic, taking on the deep pockets of an Australian owned bank. Unfortunately, her victory is likely to be hollow, given her legal costs in pursuing her claims. Read more....

In an extraordinary move, the nine councillors of the South Wairarapa District Council took out full page adverts in their local newspapers reassuring the community that they are continuing with the work of safeguarding the interests of their region. This follows a unanimous vote of no confidence of the councillors in October last year. What has been going on?

After the no confidence vote, the mayor pointed out that the vote has no legal effect; he is elected by the community so the councillors have no power to demand his resignation. “I haven’t contemplated resigning. You’ll be the first to know if I do, I promise” he said.

The Council has been in trouble for some time. In May last year the then chief executive departed suddenly, with a confidential legal settlement in which he is understood to have been paid out about $80,000 in notice.

There was a code of conduct complaint made against the mayor over his public criticism of officials. At the small council a significant number of staff have left.

After the Christmas period the council held an extraordinary meeting in February and the council approved a request from the mayor for a two month leave of absence to allow him to focus on wellbeing issues. Under the protocols of the Local Government Act the Deputy Mayor Melissa Sadler-Futter assumed full delegation to act as mayor for the duration of Mr Connelly’s absence.

In speaking of his health issues, the mayor said that he had two failed operations last year and a successful one earlier this year. "There is no doubt that for a sizeable chunk of last year, I was not fit enough to do everything that I was expected to do or would have liked to have done," he said. Now, he felt "vastly healthier than what I have done probably for two or three years".

Yet at the end of April, a further extraordinary meeting was held the day before the mayor was scheduled to return from his leave of absence. This time the councillors voted to remove the mayor from a number of forums, groups, and committees.

The mayor said he was surprised by the action, and that despite a lack of support from the council he had no intention of stepping down “I intend to carry on doing what I have been doing.”

The councillors disputed the mayor’s claim that he was unaware of the review of committee appointments saying that an independent advisor had told the mayor about the council’s intended action before the meeting.

It is understood that the parties have over the preceding months engaged in mediation and facilitation, and that Local Government NZ has been working with the parties.

The council finds itself in an extraordinary situation. All the councillors have voted unanimously that they have no confidence in the mayor. The mayor and the councillors are all elected by the community.

Trust and confidence is often at the core of relationships. It is considered an essential part of an employment relationship. When either an employer or an employee expresses that they no longer have confidence in the other then inevitably the employment relationship ends.

If a Board of a company expresses that its trust and confidence has been lost in its Chief Executive, it is inevitable that the Chief Executive’s employment would be terminated for cause, or would otherwise be “exited” from the company.

If the District Council was a company and all the Board members had voted that they had no confidence in the Chairperson, it seems inconceivable that the Chair would not resign. In that unlikely event, the directors would request that the shareholders hold a shareholders meeting to remove the Chair and appoint a new Chair.

Where to for the South Wairarapa District Council? The Local Government Act provides that the role of a mayor is to provide leadership to the other members of the territorial authority and the people in the district of the territorial authority. As matters stand, clearly the mayor cannot provide this given that the councillors have unanimously and publicly said that they have no confidence in him. Given that the councillors cannot “fire” the mayor, should the mayor resign? The alternative appears to be that the community will have to pay a lame duck mayor for the rest of his term. Read more.....

In the United States the Federal Trade Commission has voted to ban employers getting their employees to sign agreements with non-compete clauses (often also called restraint of trade clauses). The Commission estimates that the ban would increase wages and benefits by up to $US488 billion over a decade and will lead to the creation of more than 8,500 new businesses each year.

The Commission estimates that around 30 million US workers are bound by a non-compete clause in their current jobs. The Commission asserts that such clauses restrict workers from freely switching jobs, it lowers wages, stifles innovation, blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses and undermines fair competition.

Currently three US states, plus Washington DC, already have nearly complete bans on such clauses, while some other states have restrictions on their use within certain parameters, such as limiting them to high-wage earners.

After the Commission made the announcement, President Joe Biden said “the FTC is cracking down on ‘non-compete agreements,’ contracts that employers use to prevent their workers from changing jobs even if that job will pay a few dollars more, or provide better working conditions. Workers ought to have the right to choose who they want to work for.”

There is likely to be legal pushback from US employers and business groups that may delay enforcement of the rule while it is challenged in court. Major business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce have said they will challenge the Commission’s ruling. Unions are of course backing the ruling.

Across the Tasman, the Australian Government in September 2023 released an Employment “White Paper Roadmap” which noted that non-compete clauses effectively deter employees from switching jobs, which in turn inhibits wage growth, even when there could be uncertainty around their enforceability. With that finding, the Australian Government committed to investigate the use of non-compete clauses as part of a review on competition, productivity and wage movement. The public and stakeholders had until the end of May 2024 to make submissions about whether reform is needed to control the use of non-compete and restraint related clauses.

Because non-compete clauses can impose restrictions on the freedom and mobility of workers, they could be considered a form of indentured servitude. Master and Servant Acts were laws designed to regulate relations between employers and employees. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (an 1856 Act) and South Africa used them to require obedience and loyalty from servants to their contracted employer. Infringements were punishable by courts, and could involve a jail sentence of hard labour.

Today, in New Zealand, restrictions on economic activity after the end of employment are not illegal, but are often considered unlawful because they are anti-competitive and contrary to the public interest. In principle, New Zealand workers are regarded as being free to “sell” and use their skills to earn a living. Where an employer requires a worker to agree on a non-compete clause, if they wish to enforce the restriction the employer will need to establish to the courts satisfaction that it is reasonable. As a result, non-compete clauses often include a time and geographical limitation, or a restriction on working for an employer’s competitor for a limited period of time.

The Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament in September 2022 as a Private Member’s Bill. The Bill provides that restraints of trade could no longer be used for low or middle-income employees.  For high income employees, employers would have to pay half of the employee’s average weekly earnings for the period of the restraint of no more than six months after employment ends.

The Bill passed its first reading in Parliament in July 2023 and has been sent off to a Select Committee where members of the public will have an opportunity to make submissions. The National and Act parties opposed the Bill at its first reading, so it is unlikely that it will progress further.

At least for the present, for those New Zealand employers that have non-compete provisions for their employees, they will still need to justify their reasonableness should they be challenged in court. Read more....