Here’s a hypothetical case for an employer to grapple with. Before commencing employment the employee has disclosed the most serious incident the employee was involved in as a youth to the “interviewing panel” (although maybe not the full extent of that type of behaviour). The issue is disclosed to senior management before the employee is offered employment. The Chief Executive is not informed of the issue and works closely with the employee to support the employee in the business and local community. Subsequently, the issue is made public and the employee and the employer come under close scrutiny.

Outside the employment jurisdiction, Parliament’s newest MP has been thrust into the public’s attention after it was revealed in the media that he was kicked out of boarding school as a teenager for seriously beating up a younger student with several other boys.

To Sam Uffindell’s credit it appears that he genuinely apologised to his victim prior to standing as a candidate in the Tauranga by-election. It seems that he disclosed the matter during the National Party’s candidate selection process. It also appears that the Selection Committee advised the National Party Leader’s office, but the disclosure was not passed onto the National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon.

Subsequently, Mr Uffindell has been stood down pending an independent investigation by respected employment lawyer Maria Dew QC after a further serious allegation was made by a former female flatmate of events dating back to a student flat in Dunedin in 2003.

Mr Uffindell campaigned in part on a law and order platform. For example, in his campaign launch speech, Mr Uffindell said “As the Tauranga Member of Parliament, my commitment will be to law-abiding citizens not to the gangs, criminals and those engaged in anti-social behaviour. You deserve to be safe in your home and in our community”. Mr Uffindell did not disclose his past history to voters while on the campaign trail. Read more....

Our athletes and sportspeople have been doing us proud in Birmingham. Our attention is drawn to male and female events alike with no disparity. If a medal is achieved, our nation basks in their success.

The New Zealand team in Birmingham is fronting more female athletes than males. When the excitement of the Birmingham games dies down, we can reflect on progress in some of our professional teams and pay equity.

Sport fans will have read recently of the ground-breaking news that the United States’ national women’s soccer team has scored a pay agreement that equalises the rate they receive for game appearances and tournament victories as the national men’s team.

The agreement will end the women’s guaranteed-salary system they previously had and put both national teams on a pay-for-play model. The previous salary system offered the women players security and a constant wage, but failed to reward players for their time on the field as the men’s wages did.

Top players will now receive higher match payments, shared World Cup pay-outs with the men and revenue-sharing splits with US Soccer. The shared World Cup pay-outs means that the prize money won by each team will be pooled and split between the teams equally, which corrects the imbalance that FIFA (the sport’s international governing institution in charge of the World Cups) pays the men’s tournament players significantly more than the women’s tournament players.

Another part of the agreement relates to revenue-sharing. This part could see the women players receive millions more from their cut of US Soccer’s commercial revenues each year. It is clearly a comprehensive accounting of the imbalance between the two teams’ pay.

A downside of the agreement is that it takes away resources that could be used to support all levels and all facets of the game.  This is a similar problem faced by New Zealand Rugby. Indeed, lack of funding for women’s rugby and grass-roots clubs is part of the attraction behind the investment agreement by US private equity firm Silver Lake with New Zealand Rugby. Read more...

Managing health and safety at work is everyone’s responsibility. People often get hurt because nobody has thought about how the work might be dangerous. Sometimes people are harmed because they have not been trained to do their job safely.

Accidents at work are very common. The statistics are frightening. It is reported that about 50 people are killed at work in New Zealand every year, and more are seriously injured. Each year, an estimated 600 to 900 people die from work-related disease. If that is correct, a worker is more than 10 times likely to die from a work-related disease than from an accident at work.

Two recent sentencings in the District Court illustrate the importance of taking health and safety seriously, no matter the size or complexity of the work environment. Read more

Don’t sack someone because they are pregnant. It should be obvious, but some employers still seem to ignore such basic rules, to their significant financial peril. Eventually.

Pregnant workers in New Zealand are protected by three main pieces of legislation – the Employment Relations Act, the Human Rights Act and the Parental Leave and Employment Act. All three acts provide protections for pregnant workers – the first two in the form of anti-discrimination rules, the latter by setting rules around taking parental leave and protecting the employee’s right to return to work.

A worker who claims to have been unlawfully discriminated against can choose to bring a claim either under the Human Rights Act or the Employment Relations Act, but not both.

Typically, workers will bring their claims under the Employment Relations Act, because it means other non-discrimination claims can be dealt with at the same time. It is also typically a quicker process, although the wait can still be much longer than is ideal. Read more