24.10.2019

Who is working when? Public holidays and ‘otherwise working days’

With Labour Day just around the corner, and Christmas/New Year looming, we are getting a few questions about the “otherwise working day”.

This concept is important because it determines whether a person who does not work on a public holiday receives payment for the day, and also whether a person who does work on the public holiday is entitled to an alternative holiday (day in lieu). 

For most employees, deciding whether a public holiday falls on a day that would otherwise be a working day for that employee will be an easy task.  If the person’s working hours include, for example, Mondays, and Labour Day falls on a Monday, the employee will receive payment for the public holiday – that is, they will not work, and will be paid their relevant daily pay. 

However, for an employee who works variable hours, or for a casual employee who is engaged on an ‘as and when required’ basis, the task is not so simple.   For these sorts of employees, figuring out what would be an otherwise working day needs to be assessed on an employee by employee basis.

Section 12(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 provides that if it is unclear whether the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee, the factors that the employer must consider include:

  • What the employment agreement says;
  • The employee’s usual work patterns;
  • Any other relevant factors such as if the employee works for the employer only when work is available or the employer’s rosters or other similar systems; and
  • Whether, but for the day being a public holiday, the employee would have worked on the day concerned.

Some employers will look at whether the employee worked on the day in question for a set number of  weeks leading up to the public holiday.  If the public holiday falls on a Monday and the employee has not worked, for example, the last 4 Mondays, the employer deems that the public holiday would not otherwise be a working day for that employee.  This can be a setting in the payroll system.

For reasons of simplicity and convenience, it is easy to see why an employer would prefer a strict mathematical formula that is automated in the payroll system.  However, an automated rule may not comply with the Holidays Act, as illustrated in Wendco (NZ) Limited v Labour Inspector of MBIE.

In Wendco, the Employment Relations Authority found that the employer’s rule – a three week assessment automatically applied by the payroll software –  restricted or reduced some employees’ entitlements to alternative holiday days and created a risk of targeted rostering.

The Authority said that there was no ‘one size fits all’ answer to the question of what period the employer’s assessment needed to cover, although it would be “considerably longer than the preceding three weeks”.  The Authority expressed a view that 12 months would be too long, but a three to six month period might be a reasonable time over which to assess all of the factors set out in s12(3). However, the emphasis was on a genuine consideration of the factors, rather than a rigidly applied, or automated rule.

The Authority considered and rejected the employer’s argument that assessing each person individually would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, and might mean closing on public holidays or charging a surcharge.  The Authority said these were not considerations that needed to be taken into account.  In other words, the legislation does not provide concessions for employer inconvenience.  The Authority concluded that “An individual employee approach is simply part of the price Wendco pays for the benefit of the convenience it gains by using variable rosters”.

It is clear that the Authority is interested in compliance, not convenience.  The employer must turn its mind to a genuine consideration of the factors, rather than a blanket rule.

If you have any questions about how this might apply in your business, please do not hesitate to give us a call.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

4 million reasons for a tailored Shareholders’ Agreement: Dold v Murphy
The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Dold v Murphy highlights the importance of having an appropriate Shareholders’ Agreement in place.
21.10.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Company Law
Things to know before starting a lending business in New Zealand
Things to know before starting a lending business in New Zealand
09.10.2020 Posted in Corporate & Commercial law
Hesketh Henry announces new managing partner
We are very pleased to announce the appointment of Christina Bryant as our new managing partner.
09.10.2020
Supreme Court forecast – storms ahead for directors
On 24 September 2020, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in the case of Debut Homes Ltd (In Liquidation) v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100.
Is this Organic? Proposed Regulation of Organic Product Claims
The Organic Products Bill, which is currently at the Select Committee stage, proposes to introduce a regime to regulate claims made by businesses that products are organic (known as making an “organ...
06.10.2020 Posted in Business Advice
Government calls time on Dodds litigation
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Dodds [2020] NZCA 395
Privacy Act 2020: new obligations to report privacy breaches
The Privacy Act 2020 creates a new requirement to report serious privacy breaches, as from 1 December 2020. 
25.09.2020 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->