New Zealand

Employers must pay for hours actually worked. If an employee is absent without authorisation, the employer need not pay them during that absence, unless a contractual or statutory entitlement requires it.

Employers must act fairly and reasonably. This means asking the employee why they were absent and giving them a chance to respond. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the employer, following their own internal policies and statutory employment standards, could conduct a disciplinary process.

If the medical certificate contains the required information and was issued by a health practitioner, it's valid and the employer must grant the sick leave. If the employee is entitled to sick leave, it must be paid.

If the certificate lacks sufficient information, the employer could ask the employee for more details or request a further medical certificate. Depending on the employer's policies and the employee’s employment agreement, the employer may be able to requ est an examination by a different health practitioner.

An employer cannot require an employee to undertake a breathalyser test without a clear policy framework in place. Where testing is conducted on the basis of reasonable cause, that reasonable cause must fall within the parameters defined in the employer's policy. Such testing is more likely to be considered justified in safety-sensitive work environments.

Suspension pending investigation may be an appropriate interim measure, particularly where the employee's role involves safety-sensitive duties.

Following a positive test result, the employer must conduct a thorough investigation before taking any disciplinary action. The key consideration is the "likelihood of impairment" rather than merely the fact of a positive result. Employers can only act upon what is known . A positive breathalyser test does not automatically establish impairment or provide sufficient grounds for dismissal without further investigation.

An employer cannot unilaterally change the terms of an employee's employment. Generally, the employer would need the consent of the employees before rearranging work hours to accommodate match viewing.

If the employees’ employment agreements do not specify exact hours of work, the employer's ability to rearrange work hours will depend on the employer’s policies and the other terms of the employee’s employment agreement.

The employer could investigate the conduct by gathering relevant evidence and providing the employee with an opportunity to respond.

If substantiated, the employer could initiate disciplinary process. The severity of the misconduct will depend on the nature of the employer's business and the cybersecurity risks posed. Use of company IT systems for illegal gambling or illegal streaming services may constitute serious misconduct warranting outcomes up to and including summary dismissal.

Conversely, using a legal streaming service to watch matches during work hours, while an inappropriate use of work time, would more likely justify a written warning rather than dismissal.

Conduct outside of working hours may constitute misconduct in employment if there is a relationship between the conduct and the employment, or if the conduct impacts negatively on the employer's business or reputation. A staff-organised World Cup event is likely to satisfy this connection. The employer could address misconduct through a fair disciplinary process.

For events unrelated to the workplace, the employer could take action if the conduct brings the employer into disrepute. For example, an employee wearing company uniform behaves poorly at a non-work event .