Multiple employers fined after employee suffers life threatening injuries…
June 10, 2024
The District Court has fined multiple employers after their health and safety failures lead to an employee suffering life threatening injuries.
The injury occurred during a construction project which was operated by a lead contractor. Two sub-contractors were also involved in the project.
The victim, an employee of one of the sub-contractors, was undertaking instructions given to him. While undertaking the instructions heavy machinery gave out and the employee was pinned beneath it. The crush resulted in multiple life-threatening injuries and the employee was hospitalised for two weeks.
The Court found that:
The lead contractor and first sub-contractor had a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees.
The second sub-contractor had a duty to, so far as reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate, and co-ordinate activities on-site with the other contractors.
Each company failed to take steps in relation to planning, communicating, executing and overseeing the health and safety systems on the worksite. The Court noted that these failings exposed the employees to a risk of serious injury or death.
The employers failed to ensure that the hazards and risks associated with the work were identified and assessed, they failed to provide and implement safe systems of work, and failed to ensure work operations were safe and effective. The contractors also failed to consult, co-operate with each other, and co-ordinate their work activities.
The second sub-contractor failed to supervise, monitor, and train their workers effectively for their work activities. The health and safety processes were also undocumented.
The Court described these failings as a, “…significant blind spot in their health and safety systems”, which lead to a “readily foreseeable” consequence. Effective safety measures could have been put in place at a cost-effective price to the employers.
The Court fined the lead contractor $400,000 and ordered the employer to contribute to $45,000 in reparations to the victim. The first sub-contractor was fined $10,000, and the second sub-contractor was ordered to contribute to the $45,000 in reparations to the victim.
It is vital to ensure that you are meeting your health and safety obligations, especially when there are multiple parties involved. If you are confused about your obligations, it pays to seek early advice from a professional with experience in the area.
Source: Rainey Collins Health & Safety Issues - May 2024
The Government has passed a new law which has considerable implications for contractors. This comes in response to the Supreme Court’s decision which found that Uber drivers were employees rather than independent contractors as argued by Uber. Contractor vs Employee Status: A Gateway Test While the previous approach to ascertaining status was an analysis of the ‘real nature of the relationship’, the new law introduces a 5-part gateway test, alongside existing employment law. An individual will be considered a contractor if: 1. A written contract exists, which specifies that they are a contractor or that they are not an employee, 2. They are free to work for another employer, 3. They are not required to work at specified times, on specified days, for minimum periods; or they otherwise have the ability to sub-contract the work. 4. The working relationship cannot be terminated if the worker declines work; and 5. They had a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the contract. This change narrows the scope of the law on who is an employee and who is a contractor but more clearly defines the types of arrangements that don’t come under a usual employer-employee arrangement. If an existing agreement satisfying the gateway test was in place before 21 February 2026, it will be accepted as a valid contractor agreement from that date. The law applies retrospectively no matter how old the agreement. The only exception is if the person had commenced proceedings to determine their status before 21 February 2026, so those Uber drivers held to be employees remain employees but that only applies to those particular people not every Uber driver. If an existing agreement was in place before 21 February 2026 but does not satisfy the gateway test, the “real nature of the relationship” test as applied by the Employment Relations Authority and courts continues to apply. For new agreements after 20 February 2026, if the gateway test is satisfied, they will be contractors. If the test is not satisfied the “real nature of the relationship” test will apply. High Earners banned from unjustified dismissal claims These law changes also significantly impact employees earning $200,000 or more per annum (including commission, bonuses, benefits from share schemes) They will no longer be able to bring a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal so they can be fired at will. However, high income employees may still raise personal grievances on other existing grounds e.g. unjustified disadvantage or discrimination. The new law is unclear on how the unjustified disadvantage claims for lack of process might interact with the prohibition on an unjustified dismissal claim. Watch this space as this is likely to be contested. While this amendment impacts new employees immediately, there is a 12-month transition period for existing employees earning $200,000 or more if they are in the same role or are restructured into a different role. Parties may agree to opt out of this protection and the threshold test. Ban on remedies if employees contribute to the situation The new law requires the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court to consider whether the employee has contributed to the situation. If the ERA or the Court considers the employee’s actions contributed to the problem and the employee’s actions amounted to serious misconduct neither the Authority, nor the Court may award any remedies, including lost wages or compensation e.g. for hurt and humiliation. Neither the Authority, nor the Court may order reinstatement or compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, or injury to feelings in situations where the employee’s actions and behaviour contributed to the situation but not at the serious misconduct level. They can still order lost wages. These are mandatory bans on those remedies not just a reduction by the extent of the contribution. The employee’s behaviour must contribute to the situation so there will likely be many arguments about any contribution. New Workers: 30-Day Rule Repealed Previously, the first 30 days of an employee’s employment (which was covered by collective agreement) were given the same terms and conditions as reflected in the Collective Employment Agreement. This was known as the “30-Day Rule”. The Amendment Act has removed the 30-Day Rule, enabling parties to vary the terms and deviate from the Collective terms and conditions from the start of employment. Notification to the Union In relation to union membership, employers are no longer required to provide new employee details to their respective union. Rainey Collins March 2026
In November 2025, the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025 was passed into law. This Act enables directors who have safety concerns regarding the publication of their residential address to opt to provide an alternative address instead. The existing position under the Companies Act 1993 is that a company must publish the residential addresses of its shareholders and directors on the Companies Register. Long-standing concerns about personal safety and broader privacy concerns related to the public availability of such information have been addressed by this Amendment Act. Process for substituting a residential address It is important to note, however, that the ability to substitute a director’s residential address must be carried out by application to the Registrar of Companies. The application seeking approval must: - Be made by the director in the prescribed form; - Include a statutory declaration by the director verifying that the public availability of their residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to the director or a person they live with; - Specify an eligible alternative address; and - Include the prescribed fee (if any). Alternative addresses must be physical New Zealand addresses. The alternative address cannot be the company’s registered office or address for service, nor a postal centre or document exchange service. Where the alternative address is the office of an accountant, law firm etc, this must be specified. Coverage for shareholders The Act does not generally include alternative options for shareholders’ addresses. However an alternative address for shareholders may be allowed when the applying director is also a shareholder of the company, or lives with a shareholder of the company and consents to the use of the alternative address. If your application is approved Where the Registrar has approved an application for the use of an alternative address, they will take reasonable steps to prevent public access to the director’s residential address, including redacting the address from historic filings and other documents that previously disclosed the address. In summary While the Amendment Act has been passed, it will not come into force until a date set by Order in Council. In the event that the Act has not come into force by 18 November 2026, it will do so on that date. Directors will not be able to submit applications until the Amendment Act is in force. It remains to be seen what threshold of harm will be considered sufficient to have an application succeed under the alternative address regime, and whether any supporting documentation will be requested as part of the application. Our commercial team is closely following this, as well as the wider reforms to the Companies Act 1993 currently being considered by the government. If you need assistance, we recommend seeking support from an experienced commercial lawyer. Rainey Collins Feb 26
ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSE ITEMS Here is a list of common travel and entertainment expense items and their tax treatment - Food and drink while out of town on business when eating alone or with other team members 100% deductible and no FBT - Food and drink while overseas on business eating with team members, customers, suppliers, prospects etc. 100% deductible and no FBT - Food and drink with customers, suppliers, prospects etc. either in or out of town on business 50% deductible and no FBT - Non-taxable meal allowances paid to employees working overtime 100% deductible and no FBT - Morning and afternoon teas 100% deductible and no FBT - Lunches and more than incidental food & beverages for employees 50% deductible and no FBT - Samples provided for advertising 100% deductible and no FBT - Food & beverages as part of training seminars, conferences, trade displays that are at least 4 consecutive hours 100% deductible and no FBT - Rugby, show, movie tickets etc. for staff and used when staff member chooses 100% deductible and subject to FBT* - Sporting, cultural or other recreational activities, e.g. golf or corporate box 50% deductible and no FBT - Hire of boat to entertain customers, suppliers, prospects etc. 50% deductible and no FBT - Friday night drinks, staff parties and other social functions (whether at the office or elsewhere) e.g. Christmas parties, reception for existing or potential customers, suppliers etc. This includes any supporting expenses i.e. transport (taxis), crockery hire, glasses, waiters, music, etc. 50% deductible and no FBT - Gift for client, employee, supplier etc. which contains food and drink 50% deductible and no FBT - Gift for client, excluding food and drink 100% deductible and no FBT - Gifts for employees (or spouse) 100% deductible and subject to FBT* - Gift for non employee who helped with job 100% deductible and no FBT - Gym membership for an employee paid by the employer 100% deductible and subject to FBT* - Gift cards/vouchers (no GST claim as GST triggered when voucher used) 100% deductible and subject to FBT* or PAYE** * FBT applies to "closed loop" gift cards (cards that are limited to where they can be used e.g. Farmers, Countdown, Mitre 10 etc). You are only subject to FBT if you are over the exemptions. These are $300 per quarter per employee, or $22,500 per annum for all employees. If you reach either of these in any period, you are required to pay FBT on the total amount. Note there is a $1,200 per employee per annum threshold if you are filing FBT on an annual basis. ** PAYE applies to "open loop" gift cards (cards that can be used almost anywhere e.g. Prezzie Card, Visa/Mastercard prepaid cards etc). These cards are treated as cash equivalent and PAYE must be withheld on the grossed up value of the card. There is no value exemption on these cards. This list is designed to be an overview of the tax treatment of common entertainment expenses. If you have a question relating to this list, or you have another expense you would like clarification on, please contact us. GST is not claimable on 50% portion.