COVID-19 and the workplace

Employment Law
Mar 17 2020
On 28 February 2020, New Zealand confirmed its first case of Coronavirus (COVID-19), and the number of confirmed cases continues to increase. At the time of writing New Zealand currently has 11 confirmed cases. After a 13-fold increase in COVID-19 in the past two weeks, the World Health Organisation have labelled the outbreak a “pandemic”.

On 14 March 2020 the New Zealand Government announced further travel restrictions, which included a requirement that all travellers entering New Zealand must self-isolate for a period of 14 days immediately following their arrival in New Zealand. This includes New Zealand residents and citizens and came into effect at 1am Monday 16 March 2020.

COVID-19 and the Workplace

These restrictions have heightened the challenges already facing New Zealand employers at this time. This is an unprecedented situation. Minimising the spread of COVID-19 within workplaces is important to ensure employees are kept safe and well at work, while also ensuring other obligations are met.

Employer Considerations

Employers should consider the following:

  • The duty to provide a safe workplace for employees and what this requires.
  • The seriousness of the virus and how to manage the health risk to workers and other people in the workplace.
  • The obligation to treat employees in good faith, operating in an open and communicative way.
  • Dealing with situations where employees are required to self-isolate or where isolation/work from home needs to be directed.
  • Working from home arrangements, and what to do when not possible.
  • Work strategies and whether reducing employees’ hours or redundancies are necessary and how to manage this.

Providing clear communications to employees around the employer’s planned response to the virus and the implications for employees is key, as well as setting out the employer’s expectations of its employees (eg. using good hygiene practices). Many employers already have plans in place for ‘worst case’ scenarios, including having an infectious case.

Self Isolation/Absence from Work

For any staff who are required to self-isolate, or if an employee is exhibiting symptoms, employers should not require these employees to attend work as this may be in breach of the obligations to keep employees safe which are contained in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. That obligation extends to all in the workplace, not just employees.

Employees who are self-isolating but not unwell, should be encouraged to work from home where possible. If the employee can work from home, they should be paid normally. If the employee is not unwell but unable to work from home, then employers should consider special paid leave. Other arrangements could also be considered including working from other premises or working from the homes of other staff members.

Where an employee cannot work but is not unwell, deducting leave from the employee’s annual or time in lieu or other balance may be possible but only following consultation with the employee and any relevant conditions in their employment agreement/policies. There are mechanisms to require employees to take annual leave in certain circumstances which may be able to be utilised. There may also be mechanics to allow employees to be suspended with or without pay, depending on the employee’s employment terms.

If employees have booked non-essential travel (except to Pacific Islands) it will be important to discuss as soon as possible to confirm if they intend travelling, and if so, how they intend to manage the self-isolation period. There may also be isolation requirements in the destination country to consider. It will be important to stay up to date on developments of measures taken overseas.

Employers may also face issues when employees either refuse to self-isolate or attend work when ill. Circumstances may justify a direction to the employee not to attend the workplace. Failure to follow a reasonable direction could lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. We recommend advice be taken before taking disciplinary steps.

Some employees may request to self-isolate because they consider themselves at a higher risk of harm from the virus. Communication is key. Having up to date contact details for staff, and details of any relevant pre-existing health conditions is important.

Impacts

If the impacts of COVID-19 mean that your business needs to consider temporary or permanent staffing changes which could result in hours being reduced or roles being made redundant. We recommend seeking advice before starting any such process/discussion.

Higher Risk Industries

There are certain workplaces/industries where the risk and considerations are greater, including:

Medical and dental practices and other health related fields with greater risk of infection;
Childcare; and
Tourism operators and businesses dependent on tourists.
Tailored advice is best to meet the employer’s requirements.

Overseas Examples

Overseas employer measures to deal with the outbreak include:

  • Partial/total closure of businesses;
  • Enforced work from home arrangements;
  • Reducing or eliminating large meetings and seminars, using Skype/phone etc. instead;
  • Operating in teams, with limited staff in the employer’s offices;
  • Cancelling all non-essential travel; and
  • Reducing/eliminating physical client contact;
  • Enforcing contact rules, e.g. no handshakes and physical contact.
What Next?

These are concerning and reasonably unprecedented times. Communication is key. Support should be offered where possible including employee assistance/counselling, where appropriate, to support the mental wellbeing of staff.

We can expect the virus to continue to cause ongoing disruption both internationally and domestically.
Cabinet has approved the development of a Business Continuity Package to help support the economy through the disruption caused by COVID-19. The package includes a targeted wage subsidiary scheme, training and re-deployment options for affected employees and working with banks on the potential for future working capital support for companies that face temporary credit constraints.

We advise an open and communicative approach, which is guided by your unique business, its resources and flexibility. Planning is key. We are happy to provide advice tailored to the individual circumstances of your business and employees.

For further comment please contact:
Christie Goodspeed
Partner
Holland Beckett Law
Mobile: 021 084 14220
Email: christie.goodspeed@hobec.co.nz

Sophie Law
Senior Solicitor
Holland Beckett Law
Mobile: 027 305 7190
Email: sophie.law@hobec.co.nz

You may also like ...
Swearing in the workplace – can I be dismissed for swearing at work?
Swearing? We are all guilty of doing it to some extent, but what about in the workplace? Is it acceptable and if so, to what degree? Can your employer discipline you for an outrage of expletives? In some circumstances and in certain workplaces, dismissal may be wholly warranted, while in others, it may not, notwithstanding that it is the same conduct in question. Confused? Context is key alongside a myriad of factors to be taken into consideration. Ultimately it will come down to what is fair and the workplace culture. The issue of “fairness” is addressed in the Employment Relations Act 2000 which tells parties whether a dismissal will be fair or not. For instance, in the case of Waihape v AFFCO New Zealand Limited [2017] NZERA 13 several mitigating factors were taken into consideration, including the context of the situation, the nature of the workplace and the relationship between the parties involved. In Waihape, it was determined that given the nature of the workplace, several individuals regularly swore in their day-to-day banter and an employer would struggle to justify taking action for a staff member using bad language in those circumstances. The evidence showed that management failed to crack down on similar offensive language in the workplace. The Authority quoting from precedent said: “It is well established that an employer will fail to justify a dismissal where communications do not appear to be greatly out of character with others apparently condoned by management in the workplace.” Overall, case law suggests that if an employer wishes for certain standards to be upheld, it will need to ensure there are policies in place to make employees aware that swearing is unacceptable. Furthermore, employers will need to demonstrate that it does not tolerate swearing in the workplace by enforcing the policy when it is breached. It is both best practice and prudent for employers to ensure that the expected and acceptable standards of behaviour are addressed and imbedded into any training and induction processes. Above all else, it is imperative that employers do not single out an individual for the use of course language while letting other employees get away with the same. The key takeaway is, like with all disciplinary matters, a fair procedure must be followed. An employer will need to establish the facts and review any offensive language in the context of the circumstances alongside the company’s relevant policies. Before taking disciplinary action, an employer will need to carefully consider whether a verbal warning or written warning is more appropriate. Dismissal would only be justifiable if the employee’s conduct warrants gross misconduct and summary dismissal. Whether you are considering taking action against an employee or you are an employee facing disciplinary action yourself, we recommend getting cogent advice first. Speak to our team today.  
Read more
Restructuring in the workplace – What employers need to know
With the economy continuing on its downward slide, you will not be alone in giving thought to potential cost cutting measures, including reducing your labour costs. Restructuring is usually a last resort for employers and is only a step that tends to be taken when there seem to be no other viable options for reducing costs quickly.  While the impact on employees is immense, it is clear that a restructure process can be just as stressful and fraught for an employer.  That is why, sometimes, employers can get things wrong and may find themselves at the centre of a personal grievance, which can result in greater stress, cost and uncertainty. A restructuring needs to be substantively justified, and procedurally correct.  If you do not meet both of these requirements, there is a risk that if an employee were to make a claim against you, it could be upheld. What is Substantive Justification? It is likely that during recessionary times, such as we are in now, the substantive reasons for a restructure will be fairly obvious to your employees.  However, you will still need to justify this by providing evidence in support.  This may include pointing to reduced sales figures or forecasts, showing increased costs (i.e. materials, rent, insurance), or any other information that you are willing to share that goes toward justifying the proposal to restructure. What is the Correct Procedure? The procedure for restructuring is usually where an employer can get tripped up.  To start, you need to remember that you should not pre-determine that a restructure is inevitable.  You have a good faith obligation to your employees to consult with them before any decisions that may affect their employment are made.  It may be that during consultation, you are able to see a way forward that means a restructure is not required, or at least not to the extent that you had originally envisaged. Once you have substantive justification, you need to advise your employees that you are proposing a restructure and give them adequate information including what the restructure would entail, how it would impact them, and how you wish to consult with them about it. You will then move to the consultation stage and be ready to provide further information or answer any questions the employees may have.  Once you have finished consultation, you will need to advise the employees of your proposed decision.  Your employees should then be given an opportunity to comment on or ask further questions about the proposed decision.  It is not until they have been given this opportunity that you should procced to confirm your decision. The exact process you follow will depend on factors such as the size of your workforce, the number of roles that may be impacted, the typical method of communication with employees, the specific terms of your employment agreements, and the location of your employees. Having guided employers through numerous restructures, the one point we want you to keep in mind is that getting your restructure right is by far more preferable than having to deal with the consequences (and potential costs) of getting it wrong.  We can provide specific advice and guidance on restructuring and all other employment related issues, so please contact our employment law team at any time for further information.
Read more
Holidays Act – could change finally be on the horizon?
Earlier this week the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber, reiterating her priorities following the conclusion of the Government’s 100-day plan in which Fair Pay Agreements were abolished, and the availability of 90 day trial periods extended to all new employees. The Minister has confirmed that delivering changes to the Holidays Act (“Act”) is one of her top priorities, which is likely to be welcome news to both employers and employees. Compliance with the Act has been difficult and costly for employers and payroll providers. The Labour Government put together a taskforce in 2018 to address the many issues being experienced by employers when calculating leave and holiday entitlements. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, all of which were accepted (for further details on these changes see our previous article here). A draft Leave Entitlements Bill was prepared, however was not introduced prior to last year’s election. The overarching issue with the Act is that there are multiple ways to calculate an employee’s holiday pay, and the Act has struggled to keep up with working arrangements outside of a normal five day a week salaried employee. Payments such as bonuses, commission, or if an employee works variable hours mean that the calculations are not straight forward and are often done incorrectly. The changes proposed were an attempt to simplify these calculations. The Minister has now confirmed that the changes recommended by the taskforce and the draft Bill will not be “simply rubberstamped” and will be subject to scrutiny as well as consultation with key stakeholders. She went on to say “if the policy is difficult to draft, chances are businesses would have a tough time implementing it too”. This indicates a major reset of the Act, and the changes which we had expected, could be on the way. Other indicated changes to employment law include a change to the rules surrounding contractors (with the Court of Appeal due to hear the Uber case this month (see here for our previous advice regarding this), we are likely to also have further developments in this area from the Courts later in the year) and changes to personal grievances. The Minister has asked for advice on whether an income threshold for raising a personal grievance can be set and removing eligibility for any remedies when an employee is at fault. The Minister has been very clear that she would like to receive feedback from the stakeholders who will eventually have to work with the Act and it is important that businesses use this opportunity to have a say on the Act. The majority of employers have struggled to achieve strict compliance with the Act due to its many complexities. Putting forward issues which regularly impact your business will ensure these can be given consideration. Our team will be closely monitoring this and will provide specific information on how feedback can be given when this information is available. If you require assistance with your current obligations under the Act, or would like to discuss providing feedback then please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist employment law team.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top