Workplace investigations can be among the most challenging and sensitive aspects of managing a business and employing staff. These processes can be stressful and disruptive, but there are ways to minimise risks and reduce potential disruption. 

This article explores when it may be appropriate to appoint an external workplace investigator, and why doing so can be critical to ensuring independence, procedural fairness in investigations and defensible outcomes.

Even if a dismissal is found to be unjustified because an employer failed to follow a fair process, an employee may still receive no remedies if their own conduct significantly contributed to the situation. In Stewart v OCDL [2025] NZERA 330, the Employment Relations Authority found that although OCDL had serious procedural flaws in its disciplinary process, Mr Stewart’s conduct, including breaching confidentiality, acting in his own financial interests, and failing to disclose a conflict of interest, was the primary cause of his dismissal. As a result, the Authority applied a 100% reduction of remedies, awarding no compensation or lost wages under sections 123 and 128 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that four Uber drivers are employees, not independent contractors, of the ride-share giant.

However, for the many workers who have filed challenges to their employment status pending the outcome of this decision, the upcoming legislative changes will likely see the brakes pulled.

Although the case relates to the gig-economy, the principles have implications for any sector, including retail, where contractors are engaged.

Shake Up of Earthquake-Prone Building System: What It Means for Commercial Property