We are Employment Advocates for Employers. Mediation, Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and Employment Court representation. We defend employers against personal grievance claims and help reduce risk, cost, and business disruption.
We defend employers from personal grievance claims and employment disputes. We work proactively with employers to ensure the legal foundations are in place, reduce risk as issues arise, and minimise the cost and disruption that comes from poorly handled processes.
In employer-side employment law, small mistakes often become expensive problems later. Dealing with matters properly at the start (and documenting it correctly) is usually the difference between a manageable outcome and a dispute that escalates into MBIE mediation, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), and sometimes the Employment Court.
How an employer responds to a personal grievance often influences how far the matter is taken. A poor or reactive response can hand the employee leverage. A disciplined response can stabilise the dispute and increase the chances of early resolution.
Most employment disputes resolve through negotiation and MBIE mediation. Where they do not, they can be investigated and determined in the ERA, and in some cases proceed to the Employment Court.
We help employers prepare a defensible paper trail, present the evidence coherently, and manage risk at each stage-especially where a process mistake (disciplinary, investigation, redundancy, wages) is likely to be the real battleground rather than the "headline allegation".
A common employer shock is that even when you "win" in the ERA, recovering your actual legal spend from the employee is usually limited. For example, one employer incurred an invoice of $35,396.14 and the costs award was $6,500.
Indemnity costs (full recovery) are exceptional and typically require clearly unreasonable conduct (delays, timetabling breaches, unnecessary duplication). That reality should inform settlement strategy and how much time/cost is rational to invest in each step.
This can be commercially sensible for employers because it can allow the GST component to be claimed (where applicable), and it can reduce payment friction at settlement implementation.
Investigations are a frequent point of failure for employers-especially where the investigator is not genuinely independent, not properly trained, or the scope/process is poorly defined. We regularly see disputes pivot on investigation defects rather than the underlying allegation.
Where there is sustained failure to pay wages or minimum entitlements, the ERA can award penalties, taking into account factors such as the nature/extent of the breach, intent, loss/damage, mitigation steps, vulnerability, and prior conduct.
Some industries commonly rely on template agreements. For example, Federated Farmers employment contracts are frequently used by farmer employers, and disputes often turn on whether the agreement was prepared and executed correctly for the situation.
Employers are often shocked that even when they win in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering actual legal spend from an employee is usually limited. The starting point is the ERA daily tariff and costs are a contribution, not an indemnity.
The New Zealand employment law scene still suffers with its unlicenced employment investigators. Many untrained workplace investigators who front themselves primarily as Human Resources consultants are holding themselves out as being investigator to the employer in employment investigations where they receive valuable consideration for doing so. A recent Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority (PSPLA) decision has confirmed the restriction on this practice where the investigator does not hold a licence.
