Law Lenz: Employment Law Done Right

An employee sends you a complaint. It's pages long, packed with legal references, discrimination allegations and claims that don't quite add up.

And you can't help wondering whether ChatGPT had a hand in writing it.

AI-generated employee complaints and personal grievances are becoming an increasingly familiar headache for NZ employers and HR professionals. So how do you respond without getting dragged into an endless exchange of AI-generated legal arguments?

Join host Sanam Permal as she breaks down how to handle AI-assisted workplace complaints under New Zealand employment law, get to the heart of an employee's concerns and work out what to do next.

Plus, a look at how Australia's Fair Work Commission is responding to AI-generated claims and why human judgment still matters.

Because the last thing anyone needs is two people getting ChatGPT to argue with each other.

More from Law Lenz

Watch these episodes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawlenz

Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter - CLICK HERE!

Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates.

Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz

Got questions? Email them to ask@lawlenz.co.nz

Resources

HRD NZ: AI is now every employee's secret HR adviser

Fair Work Commission: AI guidance

Littler: Australia, AI-assisted claims

Lewis Silkin: AI-assisted grievances

Duncan Cotterill: Generative AI and employment law 

Employment New Zealand: Early Resolution

 

Disclaimer: This podcast is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While the host is an employment lawyer, she's not your lawyer. Listening to this podcast does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. The information is based on the law and guidance available at the time of recording and may change. Employment law issues depend on the particular circumstances, so please seek independent legal advice before relying on anything discussed in this episode.

An employee stops you mid-process and says they can't continue because of their mental health. Do you stop everything? Keep going? And what does the law actually require you to do?

Most employers freeze. And that is exactly where things go wrong.

This episode breaks down three cases that answer this question for good, including the same employer and the same employee, four years apart, one loss and one win. The facts between those two cases were just as serious. What changed was what the employer did next.

You will hear what the Employment Court actually found in FGH v RST, why the employer lost in 2018 and won in 2022 with the same employee. Also why a recent 2026 ERA determination involving the University of Waikato confirms the same principles when an employee raised mental health during a disciplinary meeting. 

Join Sanam as she covers the two questions that decide it every time and why an employee raising a concern is not automatically enough to require you to stop. Plus the exact steps you need to take to protect your process when mental health comes up are all covered in this episode.

If you are an employer, HR professional, or people leader who has ever thought "the employee has raised something but I am not sure whether I need to pause", this is the episode that gives you the answer. Because getting this wrong does not just cost you the process. It can cost you with a personal grievance.

Need training that's different, but sticks?

The situations covered in this episode, the grey areas, the judgement calls, the moments where you are not sure whether to push on or pause, are exactly what On The Front Foot is built for. It is a workshop for managers and people leaders who need to know what to say and what not to say before they are in the room. Out Of The Grey covers the same territory for HR teams already dealing with the curlier end of employment law. More info at lawlenz.co.nz.

Cases and legislation mentioned:

FGH v RST [2018] NZEmpC 60 - the 2018 loss

FGH v RST [2022] NZEmpC 223 - the 2022 win, same parties

FGH v RST [2023] NZCA 204 - Court of Appeal leave to appeal declined

Hassan v University of Waikato [2026] NZERA 486 - 2026 ERA determination

Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 - the test of justification

Further reading:

Hesketh Henry - FGH v RST the Sequel: Navigating mental health in employment processes - the article that breaks down both FGH cases and what they mean for employers

Harkness Henry - Mental health, employee conduct and performance: can it be managed? - covers both FGH cases with practical guidance

Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz

Want to book a workshop? Book a Clarity Call HERE!

Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter! CLICK HERE!

Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates.

Got questions? Email them to ask@lawlenz.co.nz

Disclaimer: The content presented in this episode is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The host does not assume any liability for actions taken based on the content of this podcast. While the host is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer and the information provided is based on general legal information. This podcast does not create a solicitor-client relationship.While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date as at the date of each episode, laws and regulations may change, and the content of this podcast may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified New Zealand legal professional for advice tailored to their specific situation.

Very few employers walk into a disciplinary meeting having prepared questions. Host Sanam recently sat in on a disciplinary meeting from the other side of the table, supporting someone close to her rather than the employer. Accusatory language. No structure. Stacked allegations. This could've all been avoided if the employer knew how to run and handle the meeting...properly!

There is plenty out there on how to prepare for a disciplinary meeting. There is almost nothing on how to actually run one once you are in the room. That is what this episode is for.

In this episode Sanam covers:

Why a disciplinary meeting is a fact finding mission

The section 103A test, and the four things the ERA will check

Important prep tips that make for a better meeting

How to frame questions correctly and the four types of questions you need to know

Meeting must haves and the mistakes that sink employers fastest

The line to take away. The quality of your questions is the quality of your defence.

Mentioned in this episode:

Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the test of justification

Section 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the duty of good faith

Employment New Zealand guidance on resolving problems and disciplinary processes

We do employment law differently at Law Lenz!

How? Through unique workshops and hands-on training. On The Front Foot is open for booking now. It is built for managers and leaders who need to know what they can say and what they cannot before they are in the room. Out Of The Grey is for the HR teams already dealing with the curlier situations. Both at lawlenz.co.nz

Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz

Want to book a workshop? Book a Clarity Call HERE!

Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter! CLICK HERE!

Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates.

Got questions? Email them to ask@lawlenz.co.nz

Disclaimer: The content presented in this episode is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The host does not assume any liability for actions taken based on the content of this podcast. While the host is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer and the information provided is based on general legal information. This podcast does not create a solicitor-client relationship.While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date as at the date of each episode, laws and regulations may change, and the content of this podcast may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified New Zealand legal professional for advice tailored to their specific situation.

An employee derails a disciplinary process. Or maybe they stole from you and you can prove it. But what if you missed a step in the process? Under the old law, one missed step could still have cost you the case anyway. 

This is Part 3 of our three part series on the Employment Relations Amendment Act (ERAA). Since 21 February 2026, the same reforms that reshaped contractor law have also rewritten what an employee gets awarded when their own conduct helped cause the grievance.

Join host Sanam as she breaks down the new two-tier contribution structure. From what changes when an employee's conduct contributed to their own dismissal, to what the cases are already showing us, all the way through to the questions you sent through for us to answer.

In this episode we cover:

The two-tier contribution structure introduced this year

Section 123B, the full remedy exclusion for serious misconduct contribution

Why lost wages can now be reduced by up to 100%

The new obstruction factor under Section 103A and the end of "minor" procedural defects

What "deliberate" means when it comes to serious misconduct, and what the case law is already showing

Why vague policies are now a genuine liability

Your questions on obstruction, procedural gaps, and defining serious misconduct in your own agreements

Mentioned in this episode:

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026, which sets out the two-tier contribution and remedy structure and the updated justification test

CMA Law's case note, What Counts as Deliberate: The Johnstone Case and the New s 123B, covering Insight New Zealand 2007 Ltd v Johnstone [2026] NZEmpC 101

Frontline Law's commentary, A Significant Shift: Understanding the 2026 New Zealand Employment Law Overhaul, on the risk of the new remedy structure creating a licence to be sloppy

RNZ's coverage of the Qube Ports case, ERA finds Qube wrongly fired port workers who refused to work with a colleague they deemed unsafe

Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz

Want to book a workshop? Book a Clarity Call HERE!

Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter! CLICK HERE!

Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates.

Got questions? Email them to ask@lawlenz.co.nz

Disclaimer: The content presented in this episode is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The host does not assume any liability for actions taken based on the content of this podcast. While the host is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer and the information provided is based on general legal information. This podcast does not create a solicitor-client relationship.While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date as at the date of each episode, laws and regulations may change, and the content of this podcast may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified New Zealand legal professional for advice tailored to their specific situation.

A contractor gets hurt on a job. He claims he was actually an employee. A single missing document decides the approach in 2026.

This is Part 2 of our three part series on the Employment Relations Amendment Act (ERAA). On 21 February 2026, the biggest shake up to contractor law in 25 years came into force. 

Join host Sanam as she breaks down the new gateway test. From what's changed, to what the cases are already showing us, all the way through to the questions you sent through for us to answer.

In this episode Sanam covers:

When the gateway test applies

The five gateway criteria and what each one actually requires

Why a written agreement alone will not save you

What happens when a contractor fails the gateway test

Subcontractor vetting, and where the line sits

The end of the 30 day collective coverage rule for new employees

Your questions on set hours, exclusivity clauses, and subcontracting

Mentioned in this episode:

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026, which sets out the specified contractor gateway test and removes the 3 day collective coverage rule

Quigg Partners' overview, Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026, covering the five gateway criteria in full

Stuff's coverage of the marble slab case, The gateway test was initially used before applying the old test.

Check out the Law Lenz website lawlenz.co.nz

Want to book a workshop? Send your inquiry through HERE!

Don't miss our updates and legal insights! Sign up to the Law Lenz Newsletter! CLICK HERE!

Follow Sanam on LinkedIn for key employment law updates.

Got questions? Email them to ask@lawlenz.co.nz

Disclaimer: The content presented in this episode is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The host does not assume any liability for actions taken based on the content of this podcast. While the host is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer and the information provided is based on general legal information. This podcast does not create a solicitor-client relationship.While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date as at the date of each episode, laws and regulations may change, and the content of this podcast may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified New Zealand legal professional for advice tailored to their specific situation.