From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

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.

Search results

3749 items matching your search terms

  1. [2016] NZEmpC 87 Kupa v Silver Fern Farms Beef Ltd [PDF, 248 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 87 Kupa v Silver Fern Farms Beef Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 7 July 2016) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – whether refusal to follow instruction was health and safety issue or unreasonable – issue of credibility – whether instruction reasonable – test considered – instruction reasonable – warning would have been appropriate – collective agreement supported alternatives to dismissal – dismissal not justifiable – reinstatement ordered – 50% contributory conduct  - 3 months’ wages - $14,000 compensation reduced to $7,000.

  2. [2016] NZEmpC 86 Radius Residential Care Ltd v The NZ Nurses Organisation Inc [PDF, 182 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 86 Radius Residential Care Ltd v The New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 6 July 2016)  DISCLOSURE - SELF-INCRIMINATION IN PROCEEDINGS WHERE ORDERS SOUGHT INCLUDE PENALTIES – Reg 39(2) of the Employment Court Regulations precludes inter-party document disclosure where penalties are sought - no need to separate penalty from other proceedings - decided cases under reg 39(2) considered - common law privilege against self-incrimination in civil penalty cases exists - Court should examine documents to ensure there is no self-incrimination - directions given accordingly. .

  3. [2016] NZEmpC 74 Tairawhiti District Health Board v NZ Nurses Organisation Inc [PDF, 275 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 74 Tairawhiti District Health Board v New Zealand Nurses OrganisationInc (Judgment of Judge G L Colgan, 14 June 2016) INTERPRETATION OF MECA – which date constitutes “anniversary date” of commencement of employment when employee transfers between DHBs – effect on service-related  entitlements – examination of series of collective agreements and extrinsic materials – “anniversary date” held to be date of initial employment when service is regarded as continuous – recommendation that DHBs make this clear on appointment – good faith requires the parties not doing anything that would mislead or deceive the other – obiter pointing out ambiguity in contract clause.

  4. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [PDF, 126 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 10 June 2016) WHETHER GRIEVANCES RAISED WITHIN TIME –STANDING TO DEFEND CLAIM - asserting unjustified disadvantage without more and reserving right to take later action do not satisfy requirement of s 114 – oversight in not recording authorised representation overcome by later resolution – challenge dismissed.  

  5. [2016] NZEmpC 68 Modern Transport Engineers 2002 Limited v Phillips. [PDF, 103 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 68 Modern Transport Engineers (2002) Ltd v Phillips (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 7 June 2016) 90-DAY TRIAL PERIOD – whether provision for 90-day trial period can be invoked if copy of agreement cannot be produced – evidence showed it likely that agreement contained 90-day trial provision - law on compliance with ss 63A, 64 & 67A considered – employer’s failure to comply not automatic invalidation – agreement enforceable – no personal grievance challenging dismissal available.

  6. [2016] NZEmpC 67 Bay of Plenty DHB v Rahiri [PDF, 143 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 67 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v Rahiri (Oral Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 2 June 2016) EMPLOYMENT STATUS – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL– whether defendant was casual employee – consequences of that status very fact-specific – whether availability for work was within defendant’s control – defendant was casual employee – unjustifiably dismissed – awards at Authority upheld – plaintiff to indemnify Legal Services Agency for costs.

  7. [2016] NZEmpC 65 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond [PDF, 418 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 65 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 2 June 2016)BREACH OF CONTRACT – USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – PENALTY – whether preparatory steps in setting up a new business were legitimate – whether defendant concerned in a business – employee duty to report to employer – whether confidential information used in new business – duty of fidelity – duty of good faith – contract interpretation – causation and damages.