COVID-19 and minimum wage obligations – the latest from the Employment Court

Employment Law
Feb 15 2021

Gate Gourmet New Zealand Ltd v Sandhu [2020] NZEmpC 237 deals with employment rights and obligations arising during the COVID-19 lockdown. The key issue was whether an Employer was obligated to pay employees the minimum wage if they were not working due to partial business closure, but were “ready, willing and able” to do so.

Facts

Gate Gourmet New Zealand Limited (Gate) is an airline catering company which closed part of its business during the nationwide lockdown in March and April 2020. For some employees, the partial closure meant that there was no work available and they were required to stay at home for the lockdown. Gate paid these employees 80% of their normal wage. However, for those who ordinarily received the minimum hourly wage, this payment equated to less than what they would have been entitled to receive by law for working under the Minimum Wage Act 1983 (MWA).

Five employees, through their union, filed in the Employment Relations Authority. The Authority found that if the employees were “ready, willing and able” to carry out their function in an essential industry, Gate was required to pay them at least the minimum wage. The Authority ordered Gate to reimburse the employees for the difference between what they had been paid and the minimum wage.

Gate challenged the Authority’s determination in the Employment Court.

Employment Court decision

The primary issue for determination was whether the employees were entitled to be paid minimum wage for the period in question.

Section 6 of the MWA provides that all employees “shall be entitled to receive from [their] employer payment for [their] work at not less than the minimum wage”.

The Court considered what constituted “work”, and the majority found:

  • The purpose of the MWA was to ensure employees received a base rate for work completed. It did not provide a guaranteed minimum income;
  • Employees who stayed at home were not “working” for the purposes of section 6, and therefore the MWA did not apply in this case. Being “ready and willing to work” was not the same as working under the MWA;
  • Accordingly, the payments that the employees received of 80% of their ordinary pay (and less than the minimum wage for a 40 hour week) was lawful;
  • Although the MWA did not apply, Gate still had other employment obligations including arising from their employment agreements. The employees’ employment agreements provided for full-time employment for a minimum 40 hour-week – this meant that the Company was obligated to pay the employees for those 40 hours, even when work was not actually performed (through no fault of the employees).

Interestingly the Chief Judge dissented, concluding that the minimum hourly wage applied, given that the employees could not work for reasons of the pandemic and not due to their default, illness or accident, so no deduction from the minimum wage could be made. She said lawfully an agreement couldn’t be made to reduce the employees’ wages to 80% of the minimum wage, however it was open to the employees to agree to a reduction of their hours of work to give the equivalent result. She said that to allow the majority’s interpretation to apply, meant that it took away money from the most vulnerable group of employees where Parliament had intended to provide them with an income floor, being the minimum wage.

Take home findings for employees and employers

The lockdown and wage subsidy were not intended to override the legal rights of employees and the obligations on employers to uphold those. Consideration should always be given the to the legal framework of minimum obligations, as well as the rights and entitlements under each employee’s employment agreement.

Given the risk of future Covid restrictions/lockdowns, employers are reviewing their employment agreement terms and policies to ensure they are relevant and suitable going forward. This can be a two pronged approach with employment terms – dealing with existing employees (e.g. consulting regarding proposed changes), and ensuring future employment agreements are appropriately set up going forward.

Matters to consider when reviewing employment agreements include provisions around minimum hours of work, suspension (including in pandemics) and working from home. Policy provisions that may require review include those regarding flexible work, working from home/remote working and sick leave. Special consideration should be given to those employees receiving minimum wage and the consequences of possible future lockdowns.

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

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

Abigail Pearce
Solicitor
E: Abigail.pearce@hobec.co.nz
DDI: 07 571 3830

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