Can an employee come back on light duties?
When an illness or injury leaves an employee unable to perform their regular job, returning to work on "light duties" is a common stepping stone to full recovery. Under New Zealand employment law, there is no absolute
legal requirement for an employer to invent a light duty role if none exists. However, employers cannot simply refuse a request without genuine consideration. The law heavily emphasises good faith and fair process, meaning an employer must make a reasonable, documented effort to help an employee return to work safely, balancing the employee's recovery with the operational realities of the business.
The Legal Baseline for Light Duties
The Employment Relations Act 2000 is built on the foundation of good faith, requiring employers and employees to communicate openly and constructively. If an employee presents medical clearance for light or modified duties, the employer is legally obligated to review that advice and genuinely explore temporary adjustments. This could involve modifying physical tasks, adjusting hours, or assigning alternative work.
While an employer does not have to offer accommodations that would cause "unjustifiable hardship" to the business under the Human Rights Act, they cannot rely on assumptions. They must balance operational needs with their obligations to the employee.
Real-World Application: Challenging Blanket Policies at the ERA
Employment Resolution Consultants regularly takes cases to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to ensure employment obligations are upheld. In a current matter we are advancing for a client, we are challenging an employer's unilateral and inflexible refusal to permit a return to work on modified duties. The employer enforced a predetermined "100% full medical clearance" rule for a non work injury, flatly refusing to evaluate or accommodate safe, viable alternative tasks.
In our submissions to the ERA, we highlight several key legal breaches that demonstrate what can go wrong when processes fail:
Failure of the Section 103A Objective Test: We argue that enforcing a blanket "100% clearance" rule without assessing the employee’s actual functional capabilities against specific tasks fails the test of what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.
Ignoring Medical Advice: A reasonable employer does not refuse to engage with treating medical specialists or dismiss proposed, viable tasks without conducting any kind of assessment.
Breach of Contract and Policy: The employer admitted in writing that they reserve light duties solely for people with work related injuries. This represented a unilateral repudiation of their own injury management and rehabilitation policy, which committed to a proactive, collaborative approach without distinguishing between work and non work injuries.
Constructive Dismissal Risks: By placing the employee on indefinite, unilateral unpaid leave, the employer prevented them from earning their contractual livelihood. We argue this continuous breach of statutory good faith rendered the ongoing employment untenable, compelling the employee to resign.
What the Employer Should Have Done (And How We Would Advise Them)
This situation could have been resolved collaboratively. Instead of a flat refusal, the employer should have actively assessed the specific, low risk tasks the employee proposed against the specialist's medical clearance. They needed to engage in a two way dialogue, seeking further clarification from the medical provider if they had genuine health and safety concerns, rather than defaulting to an absolute requirement for 100% fitness.
If we had been advising this employer before the situation escalated, we would have put several key safeguards in place:
A Structured Return to Work Framework: Establishing a clear, step by step process for assessing modified duties based on functional capabilities, rather than subjective opinions.
Management Training: Ensuring supervisors understand that rehabilitation policies must be applied consistently to all staff, regardless of where the injury occurred.
Active Communication Protocols: Implementing a system where HR and management maintain constructive, documented dialogue with injured employees, ensuring they are not left isolated on unpaid leave without alternative options being exhausted.
Proactive Prevention: The Workplace Health Check
Employment disputes are costly, stressful, and time consuming for everyone involved. To stop issues like this from happening in the first place, Employment Resolution Consultants offers a comprehensive workplace health check.
We review your employment agreements, injury management policies, and internal processes to ensure they are not only legally compliant but also practical for your specific workplace environment. Identifying policy gaps and training needs early protects the business from costly ERA claims and protects employees from unfair treatment.
You can find out more about securing your workplace framework with our health check services here: https://www.employmentresolutionconsultants.co.nz/blank-2-2-1-1.
Navigating workplace injuries requires a delicate balance of compassion and commercial reality. Whether you are an employer seeking to ensure your policies are robust and compliant, or an employee needing support to navigate an unfair return to work process, steady guidance matters. For more information and expert assistance, visit our website at www.employmentresolutionconsultants.co.nz.
Comments