Protected: What’s the Benefit of a PMO in Retail?
Password Protected
To view this protected post, enter the password below:
Payroll and Technology Experts: 50 Years of Proven Excellence.
To view this protected post, enter the password below:
Following on from our last article on annual leave entitlements, this one looks at the other side of the leave equation, the payment.
Leave entitlements have two key components: time and money. The last article focused on time (leave balances).
This one focuses on money, the leave pay rates that determine how much an employee is entitled to when they take time off.
And it all starts with three little words: the greater of.
These words are the cornerstone of the Holidays Act whenever annual leave is paid.
Whether the payment is for annual holidays, leave taken in advance, cashed-out entitlement, or termination pay, the rule is the same: pay the employee the greater of Ordinary Weekly Pay (OWP) or Average Weekly Earnings (AWE).
On paper it sounds simple. In practice, it is anything but. Let’s break it down.
“The three little words, ‘the greater of’, are easy to say but difficult to apply correctly.”
At first glance, OWP looks straightforward. It is the employee’s “ordinary weekly pay” at the start of the holiday. But what exactly does that include?
The answer: yes, these can all be included.
This is where many businesses get caught. If you are paying a regular allowance, and your contract does not specifically say it stops during leave, that allowance continues to be paid on top of the leave payment. At the same time, it is also included in the OWP calculation. The result? The employee receives the allowance twice. Payroll professionals call this “double-dipping” and it often happens because payroll was not consulted when allowances were introduced.
The Act carves out certain types of payments:
But be cautious. What you think is discretionary may not meet the legal definition. A labour inspector could rule that a payment you assumed was discretionary is in fact regular, and therefore should be included. Section 8(c) of the Holidays Act provides the framework, but interpretation can be risky.
If OWP cannot be determined because of excluded payments, a formula must be applied:
Gross earnings for the last 4 weeks, less excluded payments, divided by 4.
There is also provision for an employer and employee to agree on a special OWP rate, as long as that rate is equal to or greater than the statutory calculation. Importantly, you cannot simply use the base salary in the employment agreement unless it meets the definition.
And if all else fails, Section 11 of the Holidays Act allows a labour inspector to determine OWP. Most employers would prefer to avoid this outcome, as it suggests payroll processes are not compliant.
Key question: How is your system calculating OWP? And how does it handle fortnightly and monthly employees?
“Average Weekly Earnings smooth out fluctuations, but only if you know exactly what counts as gross earnings.”
AWE is designed to capture fluctuations over time. The calculation is:
Gross earnings over the last 52 weeks ÷ 52.
This method smooths out irregularities, but raises another question: what counts as gross earnings?
These decisions matter. Misclassifying payments can either short-change employees or overpay them. Both outcomes create risk, financial for the employer and compliance exposure if challenged by a labour inspector.
Another common issue arises with employees paid fortnightly or monthly. Payroll systems must be able to apply the same rules consistently, regardless of pay cycle. A system that averages incorrectly or overlooks certain earnings can cause significant underpayments.
This is where the Holidays Act leaves employers with less guidance. The Act does not define “leave accrual.” It only defines leave entitlement and leave taken in advance.
Most payroll systems show both entitlement and accrual balances, but many treat them the same way at payout. That can be problematic.
Here’s why:
This can lead to a deficit if the earlier advance payment was higher than the 8% calculation.
“Holiday pay isn’t just about calculation, timing matters too.”
Holiday pay is not just about calculation, timing matters too.
Annual leave payments may seem straightforward on the surface, but the reality is complex. Missteps create compliance risk, employee disputes, and potential financial liability. Systems must be configured correctly, contracts must be clear, and payroll professionals must be involved when allowances or new payment types are introduced.
“The greater of” may sound simple, but applying it correctly is where most payroll mistakes happen. Ensuring your payroll system interprets them correctly is one of the most important steps in building a compliant, trusted workplace.
Written by: Dawn Grant
“Not less than 4 weeks’ paid annual holidays.” – How do these eight simple words cause so much confusion?
These eight words are taken from section 16 of the New Zealand Holidays Act.
The complete section reads:
(1) After the end of each completed 12 months of continuous employment, an employee is entitled to not less than 4 weeks’ of paid annual holidays.
Seems simple, eh? Maybe not so much.
“What looks simple in law often becomes complex in payroll.”
Let’s start with what isn’t in Section 16: accrued leave.
If you searched the Holidays Act 2003 for the terms “accrued leave” or “leave accrual”, you’d come up empty. Neither term appears in the legislation.
Yet most payroll systems use these terms to describe leave earned during the first 12 months of employment – and in every 12-month period after that. Some systems even show two leave balances:
But here’s the thing: only “leave entitled” is legally recognised. “Leave accrued” is a system construct – not a legislative one.
“Accrued leave might be in your system, but it’s not in the law.”
So what’s the problem?
If there’s no mention of leave accrual in legislation, but your system displays leave accrued, how do you know it’s correct?
And if leave is accruing – how is it accruing? In weeks? In most systems, leave accrual is in hours, sometimes in days, and possibly in weeks if you’re lucky.
How does this accrual work for employees with varied hours? Is it based on hours worked – also known as proportional accrual?
And how does that get translated into a 4-week entitlement once the 12-month mark is reached?
Let’s go back to Section 16 – “each completed 12 months of continuous employment.”
Let’s review what continuous employment means.
At first glance, it seems simple: work 12 months, get 4 weeks of leave. Easy, eh? Yeah, nah.
What happens if an employee takes time off during those 12 months? Is employment still considered continuous? In most cases, yes.
Even some types of unpaid leave are considered continuous employment – think unpaid sick leave, unpaid bereavement leave, unpaid jury duty, etc.
Only unpaid leave not related to these categories, and greater than one week, is excluded from the definition of continuous employment.
So what does your system do in those cases?
Here’s one to look out for: unpaid injury leave while an employee is receiving weekly compensation from ACC.
If an employee returns after a period of injury leave, however long, the time away is still considered continuous employment.
That means the employee may be entitled to 4 weeks of annual leave, even if they haven’t worked at all during the past 12 months.
As the company isn’t paying the employee, and the role may have been filled by someone else, this often drops off the radar. Confusion and frustration follow when the employee returns and claims their 4 weeks of leave.
Surely they’re not entitled? Oh yes, they are.
Here’s the big question – what exactly does 4 weeks of leave mean in your system?
Is the balance stored in hours or in weeks?
If it’s in hours, how do you know the correct number of hours have been converted into the equivalent of 4 weeks?
Have the employee’s regular hours changed in those 12 months?
Are the hours now more or less than the equivalent of 4 weeks?
So what’s the problem?
If there’s no mention of leave accrual in legislation, but your system displays leave accrued, how do you know it’s correct?
And if leave is accruing – how is it accruing? In weeks? In most systems, leave accrual is in hours, sometimes in days, and possibly in weeks if you’re lucky.
How does this accrual work for employees with varied hours? Is it based on hours worked – also known as proportional accrual?
And how does that get translated into a 4-week entitlement once the 12-month mark is reached?
“If your system’s logic hasn’t been reviewed in years, now’s the time to check before someone else does.”
Section 17 of the Holidays Act explains how the entitlement to 4 weeks’ annual holidays can be met. The recommended approach? Employer and employee should agree on how the 4-week entitlement is fulfilled.
But who actually has those conversations?
In most cases, it’s left up to the payroll system to define the 4 weeks of annual holidays. But is that definition correct? Are you relying on a flawed system?
What happens when there’s no agreement?
Even worse, under Section 17(2), if the employer and employee can’t agree, then a Labour Inspector can make the determination.
Yikes.
The Labour Inspector may also refer to Section 12 of the Act, which defines an otherwise working day. Are these otherwise working days accurately recorded in your time and attendance system? If not, then the door is open for the Labour Inspector to dig even deeper – something you want to avoid.
Final note: payment is a separate issue
And don’t get me started on payment for those 4 week, that’s a subject for another article.
So…eight simple words that cause so much consternation and angst – not less than 4 weeks paid annual holidays.
Is your system compliant? The question isn’t whether you trust your system – it’s whether your system actually aligns with the Holidays Act.
A quick compliance audit can:
→ Ask us about a Holidays Act audit today.
Written By: Dawn Grant
It’s Monday morning. You’ve just arrived at the office, coffee in hand, when your phone pings. It’s your payroll administrator – and the news isn’t good. They’re in hospital, out of action, and payroll is due tomorrow.
You pause. Payroll can’t wait. People are expecting their pay to land on Tuesday morning. You look around the office. Who else can step in? The answer: no one. There’s no documented process. No handover. No one trained to take over. The knowledge lives with one person – and now they’re unavailable.
Suddenly, you’re facing a very real dilemma. Your options?
It’s a scenario few organisations plan for… until it happens. But it happens more often than you’d expect.
Despite payroll being critical to compliance, staff wellbeing, and legal obligations, it’s often handled by just one person. And when they’re suddenly unavailable, there’s no easy fix.
It’s a scenario few organisations plan for… until it happens. And by then, it’s already too late.
Payroll isn’t just a routine back-office task. It’s the process that keeps your people paid, your business compliant, and your reputation intact.
Yet in many organisations, payroll sits precariously on the shoulders of one person. If they’re sick, on holiday, or suddenly unavailable – there’s no safety net.
Even worse, the payroll process itself is rarely documented. That means there’s no guide, checklist, or fallback plan. Just one person’s working memory. And when they’re gone, so is all that operational knowledge.
We’ve seen it first-hand. We’ve supported organisations where multiple payroll staff left at the same time, leaving no documentation behind. With no clear process and no one trained to step in, payroll ground to a halt. We were brought in to help map out the workflow, restore continuity, and get things back on track. It was a stressful moment that could have been avoided with a simple backup plan.
On the surface, payroll might seem like a predictable task. But dig deeper and you’ll find:
It’s not something you can hand off to ‘whoever’s free.’ And it’s certainly not something you want to get wrong.
When payroll fails, the consequences are immediate:
This is where payroll support services come in.
Whether you’re facing a short-term absence or need long-term assistance, a payroll support partner like Alxemy offers:
Think of it like business continuity insurance – except it’s proactive, cost-effective, and people-focused.
Another overlooked risk? Lack of documentation.
Most businesses don’t formally document their payroll processes. Not because they’re careless, but because no one thinks to – until disaster hits. It’s an invisible liability hiding in plain sight.
A good payroll support service can help here too. At Alxemy, we’ve worked with clients to:
That way, even if someone is unavailable, the show can go on – and staff get paid without panic.
“The most overlooked risk in payroll isn’t a system failure – it’s the absence of a documented process when you need it most.”
We’re not saying your payroll person is going to disappear tomorrow. But wouldn’t you rather be prepared?
Payroll support isn’t just for emergencies. It’s about resilience, trust, and peace of mind – for your business and your people.
So next time you ask: “What would we do if our payroll person wasn’t here?” – don’t default to unrealistic options.
Avoid option 1: (hospital-bound payroll).
Avoid option 2: (winging it solo).
Choose option 3: a trusted payroll support partner who’s ready when you need them most.
Whether you’re preparing for leave cover, navigating a high-volume period, or simply want to reduce your payroll risk – Alxemy can help.
Talk to us today about building a resilient, documented payroll function – so you’re never caught off guard.
Visit www.alxemy.co.nz/payroll-processing
Or Contact Us for a confidential chat.
Once the implementation got underway, complexities of the project came to lightas the scope expanded, and feedback from the payroll team indicated unanticipated challenges mixing their new HR solution with their current payroll provider, PayGlobal during transition. Furthermore, the new payroll solution accompanying ELMO HR, brought with it some challenges of its own.
To minimise the risks they brought Alxemy onboard to support the implementation project and bolster Sky TV’s internal resources, affording them the ability to manage both BAU as well as the implementation project.
Sky New Zealand has a head count of over 600 people. As a national broadcaster, providing media services countrywide, and employing a range of full time & part time staff and contractors, having a centralised, efficient, and compliant HR and payroll platform in place was a must.
With a robust solution they would be able to attract talent, manage workflows more efficiently and meet the needs of their people, all the while simplifying HR & payroll processes across the board.
Knowing this, Sky New Zealand went out to market to find a solution that met all their requirements. After an in-depth selection process, they chose ELMO as a full end to end solution in HR.
As can be the case, with enterprise level system implementation projects, there can be unexpected complexities along the way. These complexities can become amplified and extensive when you add the integration of multiple systems to the scope.
With a small internal team managing the project, Sky New Zealand recognised early on that they were not going to be able to do this themselves. And so it was that they sought external expertise to smoothen the journey and ensure compliance, alongside a streamlining of processes.
Because of their strong reputation, Sky’s Head of People Operations Property & Safety, Alex Howieson, reached out to the team at Alxemy for payroll support.
Working in tandem with Sky’s Payroll Manager Anu Balasooriya, Alxemy and Sky worked closely with the team, actioning agreement requirements and adjustments in accordance with Sky’s business processes.
Over several months the Alxemy team implemented and executed systematic manual workarounds to address any calculations and processes for which the system did not cater, and worked internally to assist the payroll team with payroll two-days a fortnight.
As part of the project, Alxemy also assisted with delivering:
Alxemy didn’t just sign off on project completion, today they continue to provide payroll support when required.
Trust and exceptional service resonated across the project. Sky’s Head of People Operations Peroprty & Safety, Alex Howison was highly impressed with Alxemy’s professionalism – their service culture an essential key to project success.
“Alxemy went above and beyond the call of duty and superseded our expectations,” says Alex. “Their profound expertise, exceptional organisational qualities continue to serve us beyond implementation. I can’t identify any areas for them to improve upon.”
And the trust and understanding between Sky and Alxemy has expanded beyond individuals to a companywide relationship.
Sky New Zealand now benefits from a robust, streamlined, and compliant HR and payroll system, with Alxemy continuing to provide invaluable support. This partnership not only resolved immediate challenges but also equipped Sky with the tools and systems needed for long-term success.