Submission on the Employment Leave Bill

posted on

April 2026

To the Education and Workforce Committee

Introduction

  • The Restaurant Association of New Zealand (the Restaurant Association) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Employment Leave Bill (the Bill).
  • Since 1972, the Restaurant Association has worked to offer advice, help and assistance in every facet of the vibrant and diverse hospitality industry, covering the length and breadth of the country. We are passionate about our industry, which is characterised by a wide range of business models and working arrangements.
  • The Restaurant Association broadly supports the intent of this Bill. The Holidays Act 2003 has long been a source of compliance difficulty for our members, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to replacing it with a simpler, clearer framework that is more workable for businesses of all sizes — particularly the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the vast majority of our sector. However, we consider that there are a number of areas where further refinement is required to ensure the framework operates effectively in sectors with variable, roster-based working patterns such as hospitality.

Consultation with members

  • The Restaurant Association has actively engaged with members on Holidays / Leave reform over an extended period. This has included the establishment of a dedicated Reference Group, bringing together operators from across the industry — including single-site independents, multi-venue groups, and large hospitality businesses — to work through the practical implications of reform.
  • The views expressed in this submission reflect that consultation process and further engagement with our wider membership. We are pleased to see a number of proposals we have advocated for in the past (including through our Hospitality Summit 2024 recommendations report, available here) are reflected in the Bill.

Hours-based accrual of annual leave and sick leave

  • The proposal to shift to hours-based accrual of annual and sick leave is welcomed. Hospitality businesses employ workers engaged in shift work and a high proportion of part-time workers. Hours may vary significantly from week to week and season to season, including short-notice roster changes driven by demand volatility. The existing weeks-based entitlement system has consistently failed to reflect the reality of these working arrangements, creating both confusion and compliance risk for employers acting in good faith.
  • Hours-based accrual provides a transparent and logical link between hours worked and leave earned. This will make it substantially easier for our members to explain entitlements to employees, improve transparency and employee understanding of those entitlements, and to administer payroll accurately — a direct improvement on the current position. It also reflects the principle that leave entitlements should align as closely as possible with the hours an employee actually works.
  • We also support the move to a single hourly leave pay rate as a simplification of the current system.
  • Notwithstanding our support for hours-based accrual, under the current Holidays Act 2003, employees become entitled to sick leave after six months of continuous employment. This qualifying period serves an important practical function. Allowing sick leave to accrue from day one enables sick leave to be taken much earlier in the employment relationship. We consider that this earlier access has a material and cumulative cost impact for employers and may create unintended behavioural incentives. We do not consider that the simplification benefits of day-one accrual outweigh these impacts, particularly where it does not reflect typical patterns of workforce engagement in the hospitality sector.
  • The Restaurant Association recommends that a qualifying period before sick leave can be taken is retained, consistent with the current six-month threshold under the Holidays Act 2003, even if accrual were to occur from day one.

Pro-rata sick leave

  • The Restaurant Association has advocated for pro-rata sick leave to be introduced over many years. At the 2024 Hospitality Summit, and through the subsequent Summit Recommendations report, pro-rata sick leave was identified as an industry priority. We are pleased that the Bill reflects this approach.
  • Sick leave accruing in proportion to hours worked is a fair and logical outcome that benefits both employers and employees as it ensures entitlements are aligned with actual working patterns. Employees accrue leave that reflects their working pattern, and employers are not exposed to disproportionate sick leave liabilities relative to the hours an employee actually works.
  • We note that the Bill caps accrued sick leave at 160 hours under clause 75. While this is intended to align with the current 20-day maximum for a full-time employee working standard 8-hour days, the practical effect of expressing the cap as a fixed number of hours is that it will result in different outcomes across the workforce. In particular, for part-time and short-hours workers, the same 160-hour cap translates into a greater number of ‘days’ of leave relative to their usual working pattern. This reintroduces an anomaly similar to that seen under the current system, where entitlements do not consistently align with actual working arrangements. We recommend that the Government clarify the intended policy outcome of the 160-hour cap and consider whether a more proportionate approach is required to ensure consistency across different working patterns.

Leave Compensation Payment (LCP) for additional and casual hours

  • The Restaurant Association recognises the intent of the Leave Compensation Payment (LCP) mechanism to simplify the treatment of hours that are genuinely irregular or unpredictable, by providing a transparent, upfront payment in lieu of more complex accrual calculations. We support efforts to reduce administrative complexity and improve clarity for both employers and employees.
  • However, we have concerns about how the LCP framework will operate in practice within the hospitality sector. In many cases, employment agreements specify minimum or guaranteed hours that do not reflect actual working patterns, due to the need to accommodate seasonal variation or fluctuating demand. Employees frequently work hours above their guaranteed minimums on a regular and predictable basis (eg between ‘Summer’ hours and ‘Winter’ hours). In this context, the distinction between “standard contractual hours” and “additional hours” is not always clear or reflective of real working arrangements.
  • There is a risk that a substantial proportion of hours worked in hospitality could be treated as “additional hours”, resulting in the routine application of the LCP to hours that are, in practice, part of an employee’s ordinary working pattern. This would undermine the objective of aligning leave entitlements with actual work performed and risks introducing new complexity rather than reducing it.
  • We also note that the proposed LCP rate of 12.5% is materially higher than the 8% holiday pay loading currently applied in pay-as-you-go arrangements. It is not fully clear how this rate has been derived, or how it is intended to reflect the full range of leave entitlements it is compensating for. Without clear justification, this creates uncertainty for employers and raises the risk of either over- or under-compensation relative to actual leave entitlements.
  • We recommend that the Bill and accompanying regulations provide clear, practical guidance on how “standard contractual hours” should be defined and applied in sectors where variability in hours is a normal feature of employment. This should include worked examples for mixed-hour arrangements common in hospitality. We also recommend that the basis for the LCP rate be clearly explained, and that consideration be given to whether the proposed approach appropriately reflects the working patterns of sectors with variable hours. We note that this concept reflects, in a more formalised way, the assessment employers already undertake under the current Holidays Act, and it is therefore important that the framework remains practical and does not impose unnecessary additional complexity.

The Otherwise Working Day test

  • The Restaurant Association welcomes the introduction of a clearer Otherwise Working Day (OWD) test for public holiday entitlements. The existing test under the Holidays Act 2003 has been one of the most common sources of compliance difficulty and dispute for hospitality operators. A clearer test is strongly supported by our members.
  • The Bill proposes that a day is treated as an OWD if the employee has worked or been on paid or unpaid leave for 50% or more of the same day of the week in the preceding 13 weeks. Our Reference Group debated this test in detail. While members were broadly supportive of the 50% threshold, there was debate about whether 13 weeks is the right reference period. Some members advocated for a shorter window — as few as three or five weeks — to better reflect recent changes in an employee’s working pattern, while others acknowledged that a longer period provides greater certainty. One member raised the specific challenge of multi-week roster cycles, suggesting that the reference period should accommodate these where they exist. We recommend that the Bill either retains the 13-week period or provides flexibility where roster cycles are demonstrably shorter.
  • We note the notional roster mechanism under clauses 9 to 11 as a fallback for workers whose employment agreements do not specify hours with sufficient detail. We support this approach in principle, but ask the Committee to ensure that:
    • The process for establishing a notional roster is straightforward and does not impose material additional administrative burden on small employers;
    • Clear guidance is provided on how notional rosters interact with the OWD test in practice, including for workers on irregular or multi-week shift patterns; and
    • The Labour Inspector’s role in determining notional rosters is appropriately resourced to avoid delays that leave employers in a position of uncertainty.
  • We also note that clause 15 requires employers to notify employees whether a day is an OWD and to specify the relevant hours. For small business owners, particularly those with part-time workers that work different shifts week to week, this notification obligation could create meaningful administrative load unless supported by system automation. We ask that guidance addresses how this obligation can be discharged efficiently, and that payroll systems are designed to automate this step where possible.

Public holiday payment calculation

  • Our members have expressed a clear preference for a simplified approach to calculating public holiday pay, based on an employee’s base hourly rate only.
  • We note that the Bill provides for leave to be paid at an hourly rate, with fixed allowances — those that must be paid under the employment agreement and do not vary in value — included in leave payments. While this approach seeks to reflect contractual entitlements, including allowances introduces additional complexity and creates uncertainty in distinguishing between fixed and variable components of pay, increasing the risk of inconsistent application and compliance error.
  • We are concerned about how this approach will apply in practice to employees who receive additional pay components such as commission-based incentives, service charges, or performance allowances. The distinction between “fixed” and “variable” allowances will not always be clear, and requiring employers to make these determinations introduces complexity and compliance risk. This reinforces our view that a base-pay-only approach would provide greater clarity and consistency. If allowances are to be included, the Bill or its accompanying regulations should provide clear, plain-language guidance, with worked examples relevant to common hospitality pay structures, to support consistent application.

Annual leave accrual during non-worked periods

  • We note that the Bill provides for annual leave to continue to accrue during periods of parental leave and other forms of statutory leave. This represents a departure from the principle that leave entitlements should align with hours actually worked.
  • We consider that annual leave should accrue based on work performed, as this provides a simpler and more transparent system that is fair to both employers and employees. Allowing leave to accrue during periods where no work is performed introduces additional cost and complexity, and is inconsistent with the objective of aligning entitlements with actual working patterns. If this approach is retained, we recommend that clear guidance be provided on how this is to be applied in practice, particularly for employees returning to variable or roster-based roles.

Alternative leave

  • The Restaurant Association supports the shift to hours-based accrual of alternative leave for employees who work on public holidays. Hospitality is an industry that operates on public holidays, and a clearer, hours-based approach to alternative leave entitlements is long overdue.
  • Members of our Reference Group have previously questioned whether replacing alternative leave entitlements with a higher penalty rate for working on a public holiday would provide a simpler and more transparent outcome for both employers and employees. The administrative complexity of tracking, managing, and paying out alternative leave across large and variable workforces has been a well-recognised compliance burden in the hospitality sector.
  • While the shift to an hours-based accrual system may address some aspects of this complexity, we consider that the underlying challenges associated with managing alternative leave entitlements in a highly variable, roster-based environment are likely to remain. Alternative leave balances can be difficult to track and are not always taken, resulting in accrued liabilities for employers and reduced clarity for employees about their entitlements.
  • We therefore consider that the Committee should give specific consideration to whether the alternative leave framework, as currently drafted, achieves the Bill’s objective of simplicity, or whether a higher penalty rate model — either as a full replacement, or as an agreed alternative to the default framework  — would provide a more practical and proportionate outcome for sectors with variable working patterns.
  • We note and support the provision in clause 64 that an employee who only ever works on public holidays does not accrue alternative leave, and the provision in clause 65 that allows the employer to determine when alternative leave is taken where agreement cannot be reached. We consider both provisions important.

Annual closedowns

  • The Restaurant Association notes that the Bill retains provisions allowing employers to implement annual closedowns, including the ability to require employees to take annual or unpaid leave during a closedown period. This is an important provision for hospitality businesses — particularly those that choose to close over the Christmas and New Year period — and we support its retention.

Bereavement leave and family violence leave for casual workers

  • The defining characteristic of a casual employment arrangement is that there is no obligation on the employer to offer work, and no obligation on the employee to accept it. This mutual absence of obligation is fundamental to the nature of casual employment and distinguishes it clearly from permanent or fixed-hours arrangements. It is this distinction that underpins different treatment of casual workers across employment law more broadly.
  • We recognise the importance of these leave entitlements in supporting vulnerable employees. However, the Restaurant Association does not support the extension of bereavement leave and family violence leave entitlements to casual workers under clauses 99 and 117 of the Bill.
  • Extending bereavement and family violence leave entitlements to casual workers does not reflect this fundamental difference in the employment relationship. A casual worker who has agreed to work a shift has not entered into the same kind of ongoing employment commitment as a permanent worker, and we do not consider it appropriate for the same leave framework to apply in full to casual arrangements.
  • We also note that members expressed mixed views on the move to day-one access for bereavement and family violence leave entitlements more broadly. While some supported accrual from the point agreed hours are established, others considered that a short qualifying period before entitlements can be accessed would better align with existing employment frameworks. This is consistent with the approach outlined above in relation to sick leave. One option that may warrant consideration is a model where entitlements accrue from day one but are not redeemable until a defined period of employment has been completed.

Part-year employees

  • The Restaurant Association notes the provisions in clause 32 relating to part-year employees — those who work standard hours but are not required to work for one or more periods of seven or more consecutive days each year. This provision is directly relevant to seasonal hospitality businesses, including those in tourism-dependent regions that engage staff only for part of the year.
  • We support the inclusion of specific provisions for part-year employees and ask that guidance address how these provisions apply in the context of seasonal hospitality employment, including how annual leave accrual and closedown provisions interact for these workers. In practice, the ability to take annual leave during non-worked periods can provide a practical benefit for both employees and employers. For employees, this can result in a more consistent income profile across the year, while for employers it provides flexibility in managing leave without requiring additional time off to be provided during peak operating periods.

Payroll provider compliance and record-keeping

  • A recurring theme in our member Reference Group was the burden that falls on employers when payroll software does not keep pace with legislative requirements, which can undermine confidence in the accuracy of entitlements for both employers and employees. Members expressed frustration that compliance failures under the current Act have often stemmed not from employer intent but from the limitations of payroll systems — and that the cost and reputational consequences of those failures have nonetheless fallen on employers rather than providers.
  • Our position is that the Bill presents an opportunity to address this structural problem. We strongly support the inclusion of requirements or expectations — whether in the Bill itself, in regulations, or through a formal industry engagement process — that payroll software providers ensure their systems accurately implement the new framework from the commencement date. The Government should work directly with payroll providers during the transition period to verify system readiness, and that this is explicitly recognised as a mitigating factor in any compliance or penalty assessment. More broadly, the success of the new framework will be highly dependent on system readiness and the availability of clear, practical guidance.
  • Members of our Reference Group also raised concerns about the record-keeping requirements under the Bill more broadly. Our principle of simplification applies here: we ask the Committee to ensure that record-keeping requirements reflect those necessary to support compliance and enforcement, and that they are capable of being met through standard payroll software without significant manual intervention or duplication of records.

Penalty regime

  • The Restaurant Association notes that clause 140 provides for penalties of up to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for companies for non-compliance with specified provisions of the Bill. We consider that penalties play an important role in supporting compliance with employment standards. However, given the scale and complexity of change introduced by this Bill, there is a heightened risk that employers acting in good faith may make inadvertent errors — particularly during the transition period and early implementation phase.
  • We ask the Committee to consider whether the Bill adequately recognises good-faith efforts by employers to comply — particularly during the transition and early implementation period — and to ensure the remediation process under subpart 4 is sufficiently accessible and well-defined to provide practical protection for small businesses.

Remediation process

  • The Restaurant Association welcomes the inclusion of a voluntary remediation process under subpart 4 of the Bill, allowing employers to resolve outstanding liability under the Holidays Act 2003 by electing into the process. Given how widespread inadvertent non-compliance has been under the current Act, a practical and accessible remediation pathway is important.
  • We note that the detail of the remediation process will be set out in regulations yet to be developed. We ask the Committee to ensure that the Restaurant Association has the opportunity to contribute to the development of those regulations, and that the process — when finalised — is straightforward enough to be used by small businesses without requiring specialist legal or accounting assistance.

Transition provisions and implementation support

  • The Restaurant Association supports the 24-month transition period given the scale of system, payroll, and process changes required across the sector. However, we are concerned about the readiness of small hospitality businesses to implement the required employment agreement, rostering, and payroll changes without adequate support.
  • Generic guidance will not be sufficient for our sector. The complexity of hospitality employment arrangements — variable hours, split shifts, public holiday trading, seasonal peaks, and mixed casual and part-time workforces — means that industry-specific guidance is essential.
  • At the 2024 Hospitality Summit, the Restaurant Association recommended the development of a Central Hub to consolidate compliance information for the hospitality sector, and committed to promoting the use of industry-specific employment agreement templates. We consider both of these initiatives directly relevant to the transition requirements of the Bill and urge the Government to resource and support them as part of the implementation programme.
  • We urge the Government to commit to developing plain-language, hospitality-specific guidance in collaboration with the Restaurant Association ahead of the Bill’s commencement date.

Summary of recommendations

The Restaurant Association asks the Committee to:

  • Retain the hours-based accrual framework for annual and sick leave.
  • Retain the pro-rata approach to sick leave accrual.
  • Consider whether a qualifying period before leave can be taken should be retained for sick leave, bereavement leave, and family violence leave, even where entitlements accrue from day one.
  • Clarify the intended policy outcome of the 160-hour sick leave cap and consider whether a more proportionate approach is required to ensure consistency across different working patterns.
  • Review the Leave Compensation Payment framework to ensure it is workable in sectors with variable working patterns, including clarifying the definition of “standard contractual hours” and the basis for the proposed 12.5% rate.
  • Consider whether the Bill should include a mechanism for employers and employees to agree on a shorter OWD reference period where a shorter roster cycle better reflects the employee’s working pattern.
  • Ensure the Otherwise Working Day test, notional roster provisions, and employer notification requirements are accompanied by practical guidance developed with input from industry associations, and that payroll systems are designed to automate the notification obligation where possible.
  • Consider adopting a base-pay-only approach to leave payment calculations as a simpler and more consistent outcome, and if allowances are to be included, provide clear, plain-language guidance.
  • Review the approach to annual leave accrual during periods of parental and other statutory leave to ensure alignment with the principle that leave accrues based on work performed.
  • Give specific consideration to whether the alternative leave framework achieves the Bill’s goal of simplicity, having regard to the views of the hospitality sector on higher penalty rates as an alternative.
  • Reconsider the extension of bereavement leave and family violence leave entitlements to casual workers, having regard to the fundamental differences between casual and ongoing employment arrangements, and whether the proposed framework appropriately reflects those differences.
  • Ensure guidance addresses how part-year employee provisions apply in seasonal hospitality employment contexts.
  • Work with payroll software providers during the transition period to verify system readiness, and ensure that employers are not penalised for errors that originate in non-compliant payroll software.
  • Ensure that record-keeping requirements represent the minimum necessary to support compliance and can be met through standard payroll software without significant manual intervention.
  • Work with payroll software providers and industry associations to ensure accessible, low-cost pay statement solutions are available to small businesses before the new requirements come into force.
  • Ensure the penalty regime recognises good-faith efforts to comply, particularly during the transition and early implementation period.
  • Ensure the hospitality industry has the opportunity to contribute to the development of remediation process regulations.
  • Commit to the development of hospitality-specific transition guidance, produced in partnership with the Restaurant Association, ahead of the Bill’s commencement.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Employment Leave Bill. We would be happy to discuss any part of this submission in more detail and to provide any assistance the Committee may require.

More submissions by the Restaurant Association can be accessed here.

A new leave law is on the way — what is being proposed?

posted on

The Employment Leave Bill is making its way through Parliament and, if passed, will replace the Holidays Act 2003. The emphasis on simplifying the current requirements is welcomed. The current Act has been a compliance headache for years, and overall we consider that the proposed changes are a genuine step in the right direction.

One of the most significant shifts is moving leave to an hours-based system. Annual and sick leave would be calculated against an employee’s standard hours rather than weeks worked. For hospitality businesses — where variable hours, shift work, and changing rosters are part of the job — this makes far more sense than the current system. Hours-based accrual provides a transparent and logical link between hours worked and leave earned. This reflects the principle that leave entitlements should align as closely as possible with the hours an employee actually works.

The move to pro-rata sick leave is is also long overdue. Sick leave accruing in proportion to hours worked is a fair and logical outcome that benefits both employers and employees. It ensures entitlements are aligned with actual working patterns. Employees accrue leave that reflects their working pattern, and employers are not exposed to disproportionate sick leave liabilities relative to the hours an employee actually works.

The Otherwise Working Day test

Working out whether a public holiday falls on a day someone would “otherwise” have worked has always been one of the trickier parts of the current Act. This is particularly true for staff on variable rosters. The Bill proposes a more straightforward test: a day counts as an otherwise working day if the employee worked, or was on leave, for at least 50% of that same day of the week over the preceding 13 weeks. It’s a clearer benchmark, and a practical improvement on what we have now.

The Leave Compensation Payment

For casual hours or ‘additional’ hours worked, the Bill proposes a Leave Compensation Payment (LCP). This will be a 12.5% payment on top of the ordinary hourly rate for those hours. The idea is to simplify things, however we have some concerns about this payment in practice. In hospitality staff may regularly work above their contracted guaranteed hours. The boundary between “standard hours” and “additional hours” isn’t always obvious. There’s a real risk that a large chunk of hours in our sector end up caught by the LCP in a way that wasn’t intended. We’ve asked for clearer guidance on how standard hours should be defined for variable-hours businesses.

Areas for refinement

We support the overall direction of the Bill, but there are some areas that need refinement before it works well for hospitality. On sick leave, we think there should still be a qualifying period before leave can be taken — in line with the current six-month threshold — even if accrual starts from day one. Immediate access to sick leave adds real cost and can create some unintended incentives, especially early in a new employment relationship.

We’ve also questioned whether the extension of bereavement leave and family violence leave entitlements to casual workers. A casual worker who has agreed to work a shift has not entered into the same kind of ongoing employment commitment as a permanent worker, and we do not consider it appropriate for the same leave framework to apply in full to casual arrangements.

Next steps

Once passed, there’s a 24-month transition period before the new rules come into force. We support this given how much will need to change in terms of contracts, payroll systems, and processes. Hospitality employment is complex enough that our sector needs practical, industry-specific guidance developed with us. The transition will give us time to do that.

We will keep members up to date as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

You can read our full submission here.

Find out more

You can read more submissions here.

Westpac offers financial support for customers affected by lower North Island storm

posted on

RA partner, Westpac, is offering financial support to customers impacted by severe weather in the Whanganui and Wellington regions.

Support options may include:

Business customers

  • Suspension of principal payments on loans for up to three months;
  • Deferred payment on credit cards for up to three months;
  • A temporary overdraft facility;
  • Access to term deposit funds for customers in financial hardship.

Consumer customers

  • Suspension of home loan payments for up to three months for customers ahead on their repayments and who have a sufficient undrawn balance;
  • Financial hardship assistance, which may include a reduction in loan repayment amounts for a period of time, access to term deposit funds or other support.

Westpac NZ Chief Operating Officer for Consumer Banking and Wealth, Nick Grieve acknowledged that it has been tough for those affected by sudden flooding and landslips across the lower North Island, and Westpac’s top priority is making sure customers and their people are safe.

“We’ve helped customers through several extreme weather events recently and are well placed to provide the support they need.

Customers needing support should call us on 0800 738 691 to see what support they may be eligible for.

Westpac will also be contacting general insurance customers in affected areas, to make sure they have support and the right information should they need to make a claim.

Lewisham Awards 2026 finalists revealed

posted on

The 24th annual Lewisham Awards are just around the corner, and the 2026 finalists are in. On 31 May we’ll be raising a glass to the chefs, bartenders, front-of-house legends, producers and establishments who make Auckland hospitality what it is.

This year’s finalists were again nominated by industry and selected by an experienced judging panel. They represent the full breadth of Auckland’s dining and hospitality scene — from neighbourhood locals and emerging talent through to operators setting new benchmarks for what great hospitality looks like.

Award Committee Chairperson Dan Sullivan summed it up: hospitality has never been easy, and right now is no exception — but that’s when the people who truly love this industry show what they’re made of. This year’s finalists are doing exactly that.

The 2026 finalists are:

Outstanding Bartender (sponsored by Hancocks)

Dewi Barbieri – Truth or Dare | Justin Ydia – Gilt | Trent Brosnahan – Mo’s Bar | Vanessa Vega – Sky Bar

Outstanding Front of House (sponsored by Long Burroughs)

Dewi Barbieri – Truth or Dare | Emma Mondon – Prego | Philip Stack – First Mates, Last Laugh | Ryan Oliver – Panacea

Outstanding Emerging Hospitality Talent (sponsored by Silver Fern Farms)

Adhitia Firmansyah – Amano | Ellie Sims Hilditch – Amano | Oscar Norris – Prego | Leon Sittisart – Panacea

Outstanding Sales Experience (sponsored by Hospitality NZ)

Angie Atkinson – Blanc | Logan Richmond – Sawmill Brewery | Ryan Kennedy – Hancocks Family Merchants | Sam Vine – McLeods Brewery

Outstanding Producer (sponsored by Clyth MacLeod)

Clevedon Bugalo Co | Curious Croppers | Man O’ War | Urbanaut Brewing Co

Outstanding Café (sponsored by Bidfood)

D.O.S.E. | Re.union | Rumours | Two Little Chickens

Outstanding Wine Experience (sponsored by Negociants New Zealand)

Bare Wines | Gilt | Ground Wine Bar | Pici

Outstanding Cocktail Experience (sponsored by Skrewball Peanut Butter Whiskey)

Caretaker | Deadshot | Definitely Maybe | Truth or Dare

Outstanding Beer Experience (sponsored by Lewisham Foundation)

Northern Line | Sawmill Brewery | The Beer Spot | Two Fold

Outstanding Innovation & Sustainability (sponsored by Bepoz)

Ahi | Project Hydrosol | Sawmill Brewery | Truth or Dare

Outstanding Distributor (sponsored by Coca-Cola Europacific Partners)

Bidfood | Blanc | Hancocks Family Merchants | Tickety Boo

Outstanding New Establishment (sponsored by Blanc)

Agnes | Bistro Saine | Ground Wine Bar | Manaia Seafood Eatery | Mother

Outstanding Local Establishment – North (sponsored by Red Bull)

Cave á Vin | Cousin Scott’s | Duo | Moreno

Outstanding Local Establishment – South (sponsored by Franklin Local Board)

Bianca | Hill House Café | Little Jimmy | The Bramble

Outstanding Local Establishment – Waiheke & East (sponsored by Lewisham Foundation)

Man O’ War | Tantalus | The Heke | Three Seven Two | Water Boy

Outstanding Local Establishment – West (sponsored by Eclectic Furniture)

Bar Martin | Burnt Butter | Fabric | iTi

Outstanding Local Establishment – Central (sponsored by One Music)

Coco’s Cantina | Mo’s Bar | Prego | Truth or Dare

Outstanding Chef (sponsored by Anchor Food Professionals)

Jo Pearson – Alma | Andrew Hanson – Amano | Glen File – Gilt | Rio Pranata – Ambler

Outstanding Hospo Hero (sponsored by Restaurant Association of New Zealand)

Angie Atkinson – Blanc | Dany Dentith – Panacea | Renee Coulter – Coco’s Cantina | Theodore Tjandra – Truth or Dare

Winners will be announced at the awards evening on 31 May 2026, but right now you can CLICK HERE TO VOTE FOR THE FINALISTS.

A quick guide to ANZAC Day 2026

posted on

We get plenty of calls at this time of year about ANZAC Day. This year there’s an added layer of confusion — because 25 April falls on a Saturday, Mondayisation rules apply. Here’s a quick guide to ANZAC Day 2026.

The basic rule

Under the Holidays Act 2003, when ANZAC Day falls on a Saturday, the public holiday falls on that date. However, for employees who do not normally work Saturdays, the observance of the holiday transfers to the following Monday.. For employees who wouldn’t normally work on a Saturday, the public holiday shifts to the following Monday (27 April).

An employee is only entitled to observe the public holiday on one day — not both.

2026 Mondayisation in practice

Bob works Saturdays but not Mondays. ANZAC Day is observed on Saturday 25 April. If Bob works that day, they’re entitled to time and a half, plus an alternative holiday. Monday 27 April is not a public holiday for Bob, so no public holiday entitlements apply.

Tash works Mondays but not Saturdays. Saturday 25 April is not otherwise a working day for them, so the public holiday transfers to Monday 27 April. If Monday would otherwise have been a working day and they don’t work it, they’re entitled to a paid day off. If they do work it, they’re entitled to time and a half plus an alternative holiday.

CeeCee is on a variable roster and has worked some Saturdays. Whether ANZAC Day is a public holiday for them on Saturday, or Monday, depends on whether Saturday would otherwise have been a working day. If they are regularly rostered on Saturdays, this may indicate that Saturday is an otherwise working day. A full assessment is still required against their work patterns, employment agreement, and roster history. This is where the otherwise working day test becomes important.

The ‘otherwise working day’ test

Whether an employee is entitled to public holiday pay — on the Saturday or the Monday — depends on whether that day would otherwise have been a working day for them. This isn’t always straightforward, particularly for staff on variable rosters or casual arrangements. You’ll need to look at their work patterns, their employment agreement, roster history, and the reasonable expectations of both parties. Our Otherwise Working Day guide steps through the full assessment process.

Closed over ANZAC Day?

If you’re closing and your team is taking leave, any public holidays that fall within that period must still be paid as public holidays. They can’t be deducted from an employee’s annual leave entitlement. This applies where the public holiday would otherwise have been a working day for the employee.

Public Holiday surcharges

For ANZAC Day and other Mondayised holidays, a practical approach to public holiday surcharges is recommended. While increased wage costs may arise across both the actual public holiday (e.g. Saturday, 25 April) and the Mondayised day, these costs are often shared rather than duplicated in full. In line with guidance from the Commerce Commission, any surcharge should reflect the genuine additional costs of operating on a public holiday, be reasonable and proportionate, and be clearly communicated to customers in advance.

In many cases, businesses choose to apply a surcharge on the actual calendar date of the public holiday. However, a surcharge may also be applied on other days where public holiday entitlements result in increased costs, provided there is a clear and justifiable basis for doing so. That said, from a practical and customer-relations perspective, applying a surcharge across both days can sometimes lead to customer dissatisfaction or confusion. For this reason, many businesses choose to limit the surcharge to one day only, unless the additional costs across both days can be clearly justified and communicated.

Alcohol sales on ANZAC Day — the rules have changed

One more thing worth noting for this ANZAC Day: the old restrictions on selling alcohol on restricted trading days no longer apply to on-licensed premises. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Act 2026 came into force on 3 April 2026. If you hold an on-licence, you can now sell alcohol under your normal licence conditions. You no longer need to limit service to by using the old “substantial meal” requirement. Any licence condition restricting alcohol sales on restricted trading days no longer applies.

Note that all other licence conditions still stand, including any Local Alcohol Plan (LAP) requirements. Your obligations under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 — around minors, intoxication, and responsible service — remain in full effect. The changes do not apply to off-licences; bottle shops and supermarkets remain restricted on ANZAC Day. Note that these remain restricted trading days under retail trading laws — this change only affects alcohol sales for on-licensed premises.

If you’re unsure how any of this applies to your team, call the Restaurant Association Helpline on 0800 737 827.

More information

What to do if your tax debt is simply too much to handle

posted on

This article has been provided by Inland Revenue (IRD).

If you’ve missed a tax payment or two, Inland Revenue will usually let you pay it off over time. If you set up a reasonable payment plan and keep to it, no further penalties will be added to your debt. You can even set this up online in myIR, without needing to talk to anyone at Inland Revenue.

However, you’ll encounter difficulties when a tax bill is ignored for too long and penalties and interest get added. For example, leaving a $10,000 PAYE bill unpaid for a year could see the debt grow to more than $23,000. So what can you do when the debt has become too much to handle?

Here are three case studies from the hospitality sector, each involving tax debts and showing what can make a difference when tax debt gets out of control.

Case study 1: Making the necessary changes

A family-run enterprise with several businesses in the hospitality sector found itself in difficulty after the Director experienced serious health issues, meaning some GST and income tax payments were missed over a period of time, and the debt grew significantly.

Once other family members recognised the severity of the situation, they made changes to the leadership of the business and, through their accountant, began engaging with Inland Revenue. Taking into account the Director’s health circumstances, and the fact that current tax obligations were now being met, Inland Revenue agreed to cancel the penalties that had been applied — on the condition that a realistic plan was put in place to pay off the core debt and interest. The family was ultimately able to pay off the debts of some businesses in full, make a lump sum payment toward another, and set up instalment arrangements for the remainder.

Case study 2: Selling the business

A takeaway store had accumulated a large tax debt. When Inland Revenue made contact, the owner initially planned to pay it back, made some payments, and set up an instalment arrangement — but was ultimately unable to keep to it. Unfortunately liquidation proceedings were the likely next step, however, the Director asked for time to sell the business instead. With evidence of a sale and purchase agreement, a solicitor engaged, active listings, and at least one interested buyer, the liquidation proceedings were put on hold. While the sale didn’t raise enough to cover the full debt, Inland Revenue agreed to write off a significant portion rather than pursue it further, given there was no longer an ongoing risk to the tax base and further recovery was unlikely.

Case study 3: Continuing to trade without a viable plan

This case study has a difficult outcome as the owners clearly cared about their staff and their community, however, it’s a reminder that seeking advice early can make a significant difference to what options are available. A restaurant had accumulated a significant six-figure tax debt, a large portion of which was PAYE. Inland Revenue advised the Directors they should consider closing the business, but the owners were reluctant to let down their staff and the wider community. While they offered to pay the debt off over time, there was no realistic means of doing so within a reasonable timeframe. The business continued to trade for several months, during which the debt increased again. Ultimately the business was liquidated through proceedings by the Inland Revenue and there is a further possibility of debt being recovered from the owners’ personal assets.

The cases above show that outcomes vary widely depending on the circumstances — and crucially, on how early people engage with Inland Revenue. The final case study is a difficult one; and highlights how situations can become significantly harder for everyone over time. If you are concerned about your tax position, Inland Revenue encourage you to make contact with them early. If you are concerned about your tax position, Inland Revenue encourage you to make contact with them early — the more time there is to work through options, the better the outcome is likely to be.

Additional links:

We’re making sure hospitality’s voice is heard on fuel disruption

posted on

The global fuel supply disruption flowing from the Middle East conflict is already hitting our hospitality businesses — and we’ve been working hard to make sure the impacts are being heard at a government level.

In early April, we ran a member snapshot survey to understand where things were at. Two thirds of respondents reported reduced customer numbers, nearly half reported reduced spend per customer, and over 60% were already seeing increased fuel and delivery costs. As we know, these pressures are landing on top of margins that are already too tight.

We’ve been providing our feedback to feedback – both the current impacts we are seeing, as well as feedback on the Fuel Response Plan. This is the framework that will prioritize fuel supply and guide how fuel is allocated if disruption deepens.

We are heavily dependent on fuel supply indirectly

While hospitality isn’t generally a heavy direct user of fuel, we’re deeply dependent on it indirectly. Every delivery that arrives at your back door, every supplier run, every staff member driving a shift — all of it relies on fuel flowing through the system. As we’ve already started to see, when that’s disrupted, we feel it immediately.

Our feedback makes the case that food supply chains — including the distributors, wholesalers, and specialty suppliers we all rely on — need to be protected within the government’s prioritisation framework. Food distribution needs to sit within those protected bands, and the definition needs to be broad enough to cover the full network of suppliers our industry depends on.

Of course, for hospitality workforce mobility is also key and we have raised this. Many of our team members rely on being able to get to work, particularly in regional areas and across shift-based rosters.

We’ll continue to keep you updated

We’re continuing to monitor the situation and staying engaged with government. If disruption escalates and prioritisation bands come into effect, we want to make sure hospitality is recognised not just as a business sector, but as an enabling part of the wider economy — one that supports tourism, employment, and community life right across the country.

We’ll keep you updated as things develop. In the meantime, if you’re experiencing significant impacts, keep records of cost increases, supplier changes, and shifts in customer behaviour — this kind of evidence strengthens the case we’re making on all our behalf and please do feel free to get in contact.

UPDATE:

On 11 May, 2026 the Government provided details of changes to the Fuel Response Plan. This aligns with the Association’s submission – signalling that, in a fuel disruption or shortage scenario (move to Phase 4), the Government wants the system to stay flexible enough that essential parts of the economy — including food distribution and hospitality supply chains — can keep operating. Read the Government Press release here.

More information:

Middle East conflict: what are the impacts we’re seeing now?

Middle East conflict: How Kiwi hospitality operators can mitigate rising costs

Middle East Conflict: what it could mean for hospitality

Upcoming EFTPOS network upgrade – attention needed

posted on

Payments NZ, who operate the EFTPOS terminal network, require all Point of Sale (POS) terminals with a hardware specification of Payment Card Industry (PCI) 4.x to be upgraded by 30 April 2026, so you can continue to accept card payments on your terminal.

If you do not upgrade your terminal by this date, you will no longer be able to accept card payments.

What you need to do

To continue accepting card payments after 30 April 2026, you’ll need to upgrade your terminal.

You can find out what out the hardware specification of your terminal is by asking your EFTPOS terminal supplier, who can also advise you about upgrade options.

If you’re a Westpac customer, call 0800 888 066 and select option two between 8:30am and 5pm weekdays, email [email protected] or visit their website to explore their range of compliant terminals.

Middle East conflict: what are the impacts we’re seeing now?

posted on

This week, we surveyed members across New Zealand to understand at this point how the Middle East conflict is impacting. The results are sobering.

The impact is widespread.

Of those who responded to the survey, just 6% reported no effect. For the rest, the pressure is coming from multiple directions.

More than two thirds of you (67%) are seeing reduced customer numbers and covers — the most commonly cited impact. Close behind, 62% are dealing with increased fuel and delivery costs, and 46% with higher food and beverage costs. Reduced spend per customer (44%) and increased cancellations or no-shows (39%) round out the picture.

When asked how much of this you attributed to the Middle East conflict specifically, the response was unambiguous. More than 75% said the conflict was either “mostly” or “entirely” responsible for the changes you’re experiencing.

Customer numbers are also tracking down compared to this time last year. Nearly 70% of you reported covers running either slightly or significantly lower than the same period in 2025 — with only 16% reporting improvement.

Looking ahead, rising food and beverage costs (86%), reduced customer demand (80%), and rising fuel and delivery costs (79%) are the top concerns. Nearly half of you — 47% — named business viability as a top concern.

On pricing, 80% said you were actively considering adjustments but hadn’t yet acted. Just 7% had already moved on pricing, while 12% had no plans to change.

Selected comments

“Here we go again. Yet another economic recovery false start. Another punch in the face for hospo. Mentally draining times for sure.”

“People are scared of what their money will no longer cover, and therefore luxuries like dining out is the first pleasure to go.”

“The uncertainty is very unsettling. We operate rurally, so people are already paying a lot more just to get to us — so I’m really reluctant to put prices up but realise we will have to.”

“Revenue is declining and costs are increasing — we’re being squeezed from both ends.”

“The thought of facing another challenging year on the back of so many is really hard to deal with. Our mental health will suffer and we worry about getting the business through another tough year.”

The theme running through so many of your responses is fatigue. We’ve navigated COVID, inflationary pressure, and dire economic environment in 2025, slow recovery — and now here’s another external shock, completely outside our control.

What you can do right now to mitigate impacts

There are no easy answers, but there are practical steps you can take to protect your margins and reduce your exposure. We’ve outlined seven strategies in detail — from rethinking your menu and tightening food waste, to managing energy costs and pivoting your marketing toward domestic diners.

Read: Middle East conflict — how Kiwi hospitality operators can mitigate rising costs

For general information on fuel updates the following links are useful: 

Easter Bill passes final reading – changes to be in place for Easter

posted on

Key points at a glance:

  • The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Bill passed its third reading on 1 April 2026, with Royal Assent expected 2 April — meaning the new rules apply this Easter weekend
  • On-licence venues permitted to open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day can now serve alcohol under normal licence conditions
  • The requirement to serve a “substantial meal” alongside alcohol on these days has been removed entirely
  • Venues can now also remain open past midnight on the eve of restricted days, within their normal permitted trading hours
  • Off-licences and supermarkets are not affected — existing restrictions on those premises remain

Easter weekend has long been one of the most confusing periods on the hospitality calendar — particularly because of the patchwork of different rules that apply to each day of the long weekend. With the passing of the Sale and Supplier of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill tat confusion can be a thing of the past .

On 1 April 2026, Parliament passed the Bill on its third reading, with Royal Assent expected on Thursday 2 April. That means the new rules are in effect for this Easter weekend.

This is change that we welcome.

What’s changed

Until now, on-licence venues that were permitted to open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day could only serve alcohol to guests who were “present on the premises to dine” — specifically, those who had ordered a “substantial meal.” That term was never defined in law, and guests weren’t even required to eat the meal, just purchase it.

The result was a situation that was often unworkable. As our Restaurant Association president Mike Egan describes it, the law was “a relic” that created daily friction with guests simply wanting a drink after a walk or a bike ride.

The new law removes the meal requirement entirely for on-licence premises. If your venue is permitted to open on these days, you can now serve alcohol under your normal licence conditions — no caveats, no meal thresholds, no grey areas.

It’s also worth noting an amendment from ACT MP Cameron Luxton that was adopted into the bill: venues can now remain open past midnight on the eve of these restricted days, operating within their normal permitted trading hours. No more last drinks at 11:59pm.

What hasn’t changed

This legislation is specifically targeted at on-licence premises. Off-licences and supermarkets remain subject to existing restrictions on these days. The overall framework of which days carry restrictions has not changed — this is about how on-licence venues operate on those days, not about expanding access more broadly.

The impact for Restaurants and Cafés

For most of our members — restaurants and cafés — the practical day-to-day impact may be more modest than for bars, since you were already able to serve alcohol alongside food. But the removal of the “substantial meal” requirement is still important and removing the confusion around operating on these restricted days is something we support. The rules are now consistent with every other weekend of the year, and that consistency has real value — for your staff, for our customers, and for the experience you’re offering.

Our view

We have long supported reform of Easter trading rules as they apply to hospitality. The previous legislation created confusion without providing benefit. What it did do was make life harder for operators, create unnecessary tension with customers, and make New Zealand hospitality look a little old-fashioned to international visitors.

The Bill was put forward by Labour MP Kieran McAnulty, and cross-party support that made it possible to pass the Bill.

One important note: many of your customers may not know the rules have changed. Given the legislation passed with such short notice before the long Easter weekend, there’s likely to be some public uncertainty about what’s now possible. We encourage you to communicate openly — on your social channels, your website, and at your venue — that you’re open and operating as normal. This is a good news for hospitality, and your customers will appreciate knowing they can come and enjoy your venue without the old complications.

More information:

Middle East conflict: How Kiwi hospitality operators can mitigate rising costs

posted on

In our recent article on the Middle East conflict and its impact on hospitality, we outlined the pressures now bearing on hospitality — from rising fuel costs and disrupted shipping routes, to potential international visitor impacts. But while there are some things we can’t control, here are the key strategies to protect your margins right now.

1. Rethink your menu around cost-stable ingredients

Many operators are already committed to buying local. But even with a strong local focus there may be room to push further, particularly when it comes to freight-dependent specialty items.

With imported ingredients potentially becoming less predictable in both price and availability, now is a good moment to audit your menu.

  • Are there imported items that could be swapped for a New Zealand equivalent?
  • Are there seasonal local ingredients you’re not yet making the most of? Leaning further into domestic produce, proteins, and shorter supply chains significantly reduces your exposure to freight volatility.
  • Where you do continue to use imported items, make sure your team understands the cost pressures behind them — portion discipline and waste reduction can become more of a focus when everyone knows what’s at stake.

A tighter menu can help too. Fewer dishes can provide greater agility when costs shift.

2. Supplier relationships and contracts

While you’re feeling the pressure of rising costs or supply uncertainty, your suppliers are likely navigating the same landscape. But in volatile times, your supplier relationships can be one of your greatest assets.

A supplier who knows and values your business will go further for you than one who doesn’t. And the things that build that goodwill are often straightforward, including being a consistent and communicative customer.

It’s also worth having a broader awareness of your supply network — not to move away from valued suppliers, but so that if a specific product becomes unavailable, you’re not caught off guard. A good supplier will often help you think through those contingency options themselves.

3. Reduce food waste relentlessly

It may seem obvious, but waste is money walking out the door — and in a tight margin environment, it’s non-negotiable to address it. Tighten up your inventory management; track what’s being thrown away and why, and adjust ordering accordingly.

Cross-utilise ingredients across multiple dishes to reduce the risk of spoilage. Train your kitchen team on portioning consistency. Even modest improvements in waste reduction can meaningfully improve your bottom line without requiring any price increases.

Get some tips from our Kai Keepers food waste programme insights here.

4. Look hard at energy costs

Fuel prices are up across the board, and that flows through to your energy bills too. An energy audit — even a basic one — often reveals quick wins: inefficient equipment running outside peak hours, refrigeration that needs servicing, or lighting and heating that can be better managed.

If you haven’t already, explore whether your current energy contract is still competitive. In a rising energy cost environment, switching suppliers or locking in a fixed rate may offer useful protection.

RA partner, The Utility Company, will do the work for you – they’ll assess your usage and negotiate better rates on your behalf. Find out more.

5. Adjust pricing thoughtfully

Raising menu prices is uncomfortable, but when you are facing some cost rises yourself absorbing every increase isn’t sustainable.

Rather than across-the-board hikes, consider tiered pricing — protecting your most value-sensitive items while adjusting margins on dishes where diners have more tolerance. Introduce combination offers or lunch specials that deliver perceived value while managing your cost-per-cover. Be honest with your regulars: most people understand the current environment, and transparency builds trust.

6. Pivot marketing toward domestic diners

With international visitor numbers under pressure now is the time to double down on your domestic audience. Kiwi customers may be feeling some impacts themselves right now, but they are still eating out, and with outbound travel more expensive and uncertain, some may be inclined to spend closer to home.

Engage your existing customer base through social media, and create experiences that feel worth the trip — events, themed nights, local collaborations. Strong community connection and word-of-mouth are your most cost-effective marketing tools right now.

Looking further ahead, there is also a potential upside worth watching. Travelers from regions closer to the conflict — or those simply seeking stability and distance from uncertainty — may increasingly look to destinations like New Zealand. We’re geographically remote, politically stable, and an appealing choice for visitors who want to feel well away from global tensions. Be ready to capitalize if this benefit does materialise when those travellers do arrive.

7. Use technology to work smarter

Technology doesn’t have to mean a big capital outlay. Increasingly, accessible tools can help with inventory tracking, demand forecasting, rostering, and reducing the hidden costs of over-ordering or over-staffing. Operators who use data to make decisions are better placed to respond quickly when costs shift.

Global instability is not a new challenge for hospitality — this industry has weathered disruptions before and adapted. The operators who come through in the best shape won’t necessarily be the biggest or best-resourced, but those who move early, stay close to their numbers, and keep their teams and suppliers informed. There’s no single fix, but taken together, the steps outlined here can meaningfully reduce your exposure and keep your business on solid footing while the situation evolves.

Read more:

Middle East Conflict: what it could mean for hospitality

For general information on fuel updates the following links are useful: 

Health & Safety reform is coming

posted on

or restaurant in mind. However, the proposals outlined in the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, if passed, aim to reform New Zealand’s safety regulations by recognising small business, reducing compliance costs and focusing on critical risks. 

We support the development of a system that is easy to follow and low-cost for businesses, while retaining a high level of safety for employees and one that does not place disproportionate compliance burden on small hospitality businesses. 

A system that better fits small businesses

The Bill proposes a new category of “small PCBU” — any business with fewer than 20 workers for at least nine months of the year. This reform targets the many hospitality businesses that fall into this size grouping.

The Bill refocuses small PCBUs on managing “critical risks” — the hazards most likely to result in serious harm or death. In a hospitality setting, this could be things like LPG gas systems, deep fryers and hot oil, or significant manual handling risks. For everything else, you’ll still have baseline obligations around training, supervision, PPE and welfare facilities — but the reform aims to make the overall compliance load more proportionate.

This is important because we often receive feedback from our members that it can feel like you’re carrying a compliance burden that doesn’t reflect the actual risk profile of your business. This will change under the new proposals.

What we’re asking for

We support the Bill’s overall direction, and have made a submission on behalf of the industry. We’ve made a number of practical recommendations to make sure the reforms best meet the needs of hospitality businesses.

Two changes to note:

  • Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) with safe harbour protection. The Bill allows for the development of sector-specific codes of practice. The Minister will approve these, and following an approved code means you have met your compliance obligations for that risk. One of the common concerns we hear from members is that even when they’re doing everything right, they still feel exposed to liability. A safe harbour provision, backed by a hospitality-specific code, would give operators genuine confidence.
  • Clearer officer duties for owner-operators. If you’re the director of your company and the person working the floor every Saturday night, the Bill clarifies that your governance duties and your day-to-day worker duties are separate. This should reduce some of the personal legal anxiety that comes with wearing both hats.

We’ve also asked the Committee to ensure clarity around how casual, seasonal, and contractor workers count toward the 20-worker threshold — something especially relevant in hospitality, where staffing levels can shift significantly across the year.

What happens next

The Bill is currently before the Select Committee, and we’ll continue to engage as the reform process progresses. Our submission calls on the Committee to prioritise the development of a hospitality-specific ACOP — a practical, plain-language guide to managing critical risks in our sector. That’s something we’d be positioned to help shape, and we’ll keep you updated at the point that that work develops.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for practical health and safety guidance tailored to hospitality, our Health and Safety programme is a good place to start. It’s designed to translate your legal obligations into everyday, workable practices for you. Understanding the law in general terms is one thing, but knowing exactly what it means for your kitchen or front-of-house is another.

We’re here to help you navigate any changes. As always, reach out to the team if you have questions.

More information: