Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2019] NZEmpC 15 Downer NZ Ltd v Livingstone (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 14 February 2019) CALCULATION OF FINAL PAY – different methods of calculating monthly salary considered – employment agreement considered – challenge successful.

[2019] NZEmpC 11 Hawkes Bay District Health Board v Trewick (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 11 February 2019) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CHALLENGE OUT OF TIME – error in calculating time was minor and delay minimal – application granted.

[2019] NZEmpC 12 A Labour Inspector v Daleson Investment Ltd (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 11 February 2019) QUANTUM OF PENALTY – S 174E    - whether Authority erred in setting penalty – whether reasons given by Authority were adequate to meet s 174E  - examination of steps in assessing penalty - brevity of determination and rationale not adequate – penalty uplifted to $40,000

[2019] NZEmpC 9 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 8 February 2019) APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO COURT DOCUMENTS- considerations in granting access considered – application declined.

[2019] NZEmpC 7 Sawyer v Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 4 February 2019) APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO COURT DOCUMENTS – parties do not object to application – principles must still be considered – application is for a legitimate purpose – application granted.

[2019] NZEmpC 5 Hatcher v Burgess Crowley Civil Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 4 February 2019) APPLICATION AS TO SCOPE OF CHALLENGE – whether statement of claim raises issues beyond those dealt with by the Authority – issue was raised in the Authority but Member declined to investigate it - definition of the word “matter” – the issues were an aspect of the matter before the Authority, albeit un-investigated.

[2019] NZEmpC 3 New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association v Board of Trustees for Rodney College (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 29 January 2019) APPLICATION FOR VERIFICATION ORDER – alleged documents not disclosed – no affidavit asserting that all documents are disclosed – verification order granted.

[2019] NZEmpC 1 Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc v New Zealand Post Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 22 January 2019) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCE – relevance of evidence – application granted.

[2018] NZEmpC 160 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 20 December 2018) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – whether refusing to bargain collective about wages is a breach of good faith – whether large inflatable rat is breach of good faith by union – whether wage scale must be included in collective agreement – Act does not require wages to be included –duty of good faith does not mean wage scale must be included – no breach of good faith – inflatable rat an exercise of free speech – no defamation – not a breach of good faith.

[2018] NZEmpC 157 Alkazaz v Spectrum Consulting Ltd (Consent Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 20 December 2018) CONSENT – full and final settlement – terms confidential.

[2018] NZEmpC 156 New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union (Wellington Branch) v Cityline (NZ) Limited (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 19 December 2018) CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – whether lawful for employees covered by Valley Flyer agreement to work within Wellington City – factual background considered – consultation adequate – no geographical limit in CEA – no implied term – yes, it is lawful.

[2018] NZEmpC 155 Mani and Icon Concepts 2012 Limited v Sharma (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 18 December 2018) SECURITY FOR COSTS – difficulties for defendant in seeking payment of monies ordered by Authority – application for security for costs granted – challenge stayed until payment made into Court.

[2018] NZEmpC 151 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 December 2018) PIECE WORK - REST BREAKS – WHETHER DONNING AND DOFFING IS WORK - case law considered – S 69ZD(3) starting-point –entitlement to be paid – Part 6D does not specify means or method – incorporating paid rest breaks into piece rates is lawful – onus on employer to establish rest breaks paid at correct rate - no evidence paid rest breaks included in CEA or historically – no compliance with statutory requirement – donning and doffing time is work, currently not paid – any remedies must be specifically pleaded.