COVID-19 Update Resurgence Wage Subsidy

Employment Law
Aug 19 2020

At noon 12 August 2020, Auckland moved to COVID-19 Alert level 3 and the rest of New Zealand moved to Alert level 2.

Resurgence Wage Subsidy

On 18 August 2020, Finance Minister Grant Robertson announced additional funding of up to $510 million for a targeted extension of the Wage Subsidy Scheme, being the ‘Resurgence Wage Subsidy’ (RWS).

The RWS is able to be applied for between 21 August 2020 and 3 September 2020. It is anticipated that approximately 470,000 affected employees will receive this.

The criteria for the RWS is similar to the previous Extension to Wage Subsidy Scheme, where applications remain open until 1 September 2020.

The RWS criteria is:

• The Business must have had, or expect to have, a minimum revenue drop of at least 40% because of COVID-19; and

• The revenue drop must relate to any consecutive period of at least 14 days between 12 August 2020 and 14 September 2020, compared with a ‘similar period’ in the previous year.

Eligibility for the RWS is not limited to Auckland businesses. Any business in New Zealand can apply and will qualify provided they meet the criteria.

Businesses that have been operating for less than a year or have ‘high growth’ may also be eligible for the RWS. To determine whether these businesses meet the 40% ‘decline in revenue’ assessment, they must compare their revenue against a 14 day period that gives the best estimation of the revenue decline related to COVID-19.

We anticipate that the undertakings required for the RWS will be the same as provided for the previous wage subsidies, that is that the employer must endeavour to pay at least 80% of an employee’s pay, but may reduce to the minimum wage subsidy payment. The employer also cannot terminate qualifying employees’ employment while in receipt of the RWS.

COVID-19 Tracer App QR Code

All businesses are required to display the COVID-19 tracer app QR code prominently at all entry points, allowing any attendees to sign in via the tracing app. This is expected to last through Alert levels 2 and 3.

COVID-19 Employment Cases

There had been conflicting views by employers around whether anything more than the wage subsidy needed to be paid to affected employees (beyond making ‘reasonable efforts’ to pay 80% of their usual pay), and whether an employee could be paid less than their ‘usual remuneration’ while working, or while unable to work due to the lockdown.

The Employment Relations Authority has determined:

• Employers cannot make deductions from pay unless expressly authorised (such as by a deductions clause in their employment agreement contemplating circumstances including COVID-19). This means that an employer must pay the wage subsidy plus a top up, without deduction, unless agreed with the employee. The Government’s requirement was that the employer must make ‘reasonable efforts’ to top up an employee’s pay to 80%;

• An employer cannot unilaterally reduce an employee’s remuneration. Failure to pay full remuneration is unlawful. For example, in that case, the employer attempted to reduce the employee’s pay without agreement;

• Employers cannot contract out of minimum wage requirements as a result of COVID-19, even if an employee agrees. So all hours worked must be paid at least at the minimum wage (currently $18.90 gross per hour); and

• Where an employee is ‘ready and willing to perform their work’, they must be paid, irrespective of whether there is work to provide them (unless expressly allowed by their employment terms. For example a waged employee where hours of work vary subject to guaranteed minimum). The employer may, however, withhold payment where an employee refuses or fails to perform work. In that case, the Authority accepted an argument of ‘no work no pay’.

Looking Forward

We have many clients who, before, during and after lockdown have reorganised their businesses with a view to decreasing costs/trading through COVID-19 interruptions. Key takeaways are:

• Employment law obligations still apply during COVID-19 alerts and lockdowns. While restructure processes may be truncated, where justified, any restructures must be substantively and procedurally justified;

• Good communication is essential. A paper trail evidencing consultation is important. Technology can be utilised – for example using zoom/facetime for meetings;

• Consultation requires provision of an explanation of what is proposed, a rationale for the proposal, and details of how this will affect the employee concerned;

• Redeployment should be considered, and any applicable criteria should be set out (for example where multiple of the same roles are being reduced);

• Lawyers/advocates continued to work during level 2, 3 and 4 lockdown and can provide advice/representation to affected employees. This should not unreasonably hold up an employment process;

• Changes to employment terms, such as hours and days of work need the agreement of affected employees;

• Restructures shouldn’t be utilised as a means to address poor performers or ‘dead wood’, there need to be genuine reasons on reasonable grounds to disestablish a role; and

• Ultimately, an employer has the ability to organise their business in a way that meets their needs, provided this is substantively justified, and carried out in a procedurally fair way.

The above is general information. If you have specific questions or require advice, please contact one of our Employment Law team.

Authors:

Christie McGregor
Partner
E: Christie.McGregor@hobec.co.nz
DDI: 07 928 7099
M: 021 0841 4220

Alby McClelland
Solicitor
E: Alby.McClelland@hobec.co.nz
DDI: 078 570 0692
M: 027 367 8666

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