[2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills (Judgment of Judge Beck, 24 February 2025) NON DE NOVO CHALLENGE – DISMISSAL PROCEDURE – REMEDIES – MITIGATION – VACCINATION – COVID-19 – employee performed administrative role – government COVID-19 vaccination mandate prevented employee from performing role in office – employer unwilling to allow employee to work at home – employee dismissed after not being vaccinated by deadline even though employer indicated further consultation would follow – employer justified in not allowing employee to perform role from home – dismissal substantively justified – employer required to consult on availability of roles for redeployment when considering whether to dismiss employee – employer failed to meet with employee after committing to do so – employer failed to provide information or engage about working from home – employer failed to consult with employee as individual employee – dismissal process insufficiently urgent to justify not consulting – emplo…
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.
Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.
12 items matching your search terms
-
[2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills [PDF, 328 KB] -
[2025] NZEmpC 2 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [PDF, 236 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 2 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 17 January 2024) CHALLENGE – DISMISSAL – COVID-19 – COMPULSORY VACCINATION – EXEMPTIONS – plaintiff was employed as a tug engineer – Government made compulsory vaccination order – defendant determined that plaintiff was required to be vaccinated under government order – plaintiff was dismissed after defendant followed a process – plaintiff was an affected person who was required to be vaccinated – plaintiff did not have a valid exemption – defendant fairly did not seek exemption for plaintiff – defendant not required to undertake risk assessment – defendant fairly considered whether role could be modified – defendant’s redeployment offer was fair – any disadvantage and loss to plaintiff would have been limited due to subsequent circumstances – plaintiff’s challenge unsuccessful.
-
[2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd [PDF, 224 KB] [2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd (judgment of Judge Holden, 2 December 2024) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – 90 DAYS – VACCINATION MANDATE – employer implemented vaccination mandate policy – employee complained – parties disagree on when grievances were raised – not every complaint or criticism will constitute a grievance – whether the employee intended to raise a grievance is not determinative – one email within the 90-day period was sufficient to raise a disadvantage grievance in respect of the vaccination policy – other communications were insufficient or sufficient but out of time – no grievance raised within time for unjustifiable dismissal – Employment Relations Authority to deal with the surviving unjustifiable disadvantage grievance
-
[2024] NZEmpC 198 Fredricsen and anor v Air New Zealand Ltd and Air New Zealand Ltd v Fredricsen and anor [PDF, 305 KB] [2024] NZEmpC 198 Fredricsen and anor v Air New Zealand Ltd and Air New Zealand Ltd v Fredricsen and anor (Judgment of Judge M S King, 10 October 2024) CHALLENGE – COVID-19 – VACCINATION – DISPARITY OF TREATMENT – GOOD FAITH – aircrew required to be vaccinated – employer facilitated some pilots travel to USA to receive alternative COVID-19 vaccination but refused request of other pilots for facilitation – employer must treat employees consistently where situations or terms of employment are alike – employer acted inconsistently creating disparity – valid explanation for disparity in cases where facilitated pilots had reasons to fly to the USA – no valid explanation for disparity where pilot was facilitated to travel to the USA as a device to receive alternative vaccination – disparity justified as employer not permitted to facilitate international travel of pilots for vaccination purposes under air border regulations – employer breached good faith in failing to fairly explain disparity…
-
[2022] NZEmpC 127 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority [PDF, 304 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 127 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 18 July 2022) APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO REMOVE MATTERS TO EMPLOYMENT COURT – COVID-19 vaccinations – important question of law likely to arise other than incidentally – applications granted.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 123 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service NZ Ltd [PDF, 376 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 123 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 11 July 2022) DECLARATION – ss 5 and 6 Employment Relations Act 2000 – COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 – CSN was not a care and support worker under the Vaccinations Order – CSN remained employee for relevant period – CSN also a homeworker – declaration accordingly – NON-PUBLICATION – permanent non-publication of name and identifying details of plaintiff, brother and son.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [PDF, 230 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 4 July 2022) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO REMOVE PROCEEDINGS – important question of law is likely to arise – vaccination cases are of public interest - no reason not to remove proceedings – application granted – non-publication order made.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 47 GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [PDF, 173 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 47 GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 17 March 2022) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – vaccination is a contentious issue – application granted.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 39 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [PDF, 332 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 39 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 9 March 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PROCEEDING – amended statement of claim challenged lawfulness of COVID-19 Vaccinations Order – Employment Court no jurisdiction to determine lawfulness of Order – no reasonably arguable cause of action – application granted.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 5 VMR v Civil Aviation Authority [PDF, 519 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 5 VMR v Civil Aviation Authority (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 24 January 2022) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – weakly arguable case for unjustifiable dismissal – weakly arguable case for permanent reinstatement – employing unvaccinated workers likely to be in breach of COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 – reinstatement would not be appropriate if it would lead to a breach by the employer – balance of convenience weighs against interim reinstatement – application declined - APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION – non-publication granted in other jurisdictions – significant public interest in mandatory vaccinations – application granted.
-
[2021] NZEmpC 216 VMR v Aviation Security Service (AvSec) division of Civil Aviation Authority [PDF, 204 KB] [2021] NZEmpC 216 VMR v Aviation Security Service (AvSec) division of Civil Aviation Authority (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 7 December 2021) OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – interim reinstatement – evidence from GP concerning COVID vaccinations – some of evidence directly relevant and some of a contextual nature – evidence admissible.
-
[2021] NZEmpC 162 GF v New Zealand Customs Service [PDF, 176 KB] [2021] NZEmpC 162 GF v New Zealand Customs Service (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 28 September 2021) APPLICATION FOR NON-PUBLICATION – publication can have significant detrimental impact on ongoing prospects of employment – vaccination issues are contentious and hotly debated – likely exposure to intense public scrutiny – application granted.