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

3630 items matching your search terms

  1. [2021] NZEmpC 8 Commissioner of Police v New Zealand Police Assoc Inc [PDF, 464 KB]

    [2021] NZEmpC 8 Commissioner of Police v New Zealand Police Assoc Inc (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 11 February 2021) COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – INTERPRETATION – whether employees entitled to motor vehicle reimbursement – reimbursement clause applies to all instances of rotation – entitlement applies when appointment to temporary role whether initiated by employee or employer – entitlement also applies for employee assigned to multiple places of work.

  2. [2020] NZEmpC 237 Gate Gourmet NZ Ltd and ors v Sandhu and Ors [PDF, 324 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 237 Gate Gourmet NZ Ltd and ors v Sandhu and Ors (Judgment of the Full Court, 21 December 2020) MINIMUM WAGE - employer shut down business during lockdown - employer was essential service - whether employees entitled to minimum wage during business closedown when not working - entitlement to minimum wage comes from Minimum Wage Act 1983, s 6, which requires work - s 7(2) does not apply unless work is performed under s 6 - DISSENT - Minimum Wage Act 1983, s 6 applies where there is an agreement to perform work - s 7(2) prevents deductions because of time lost unless because of employee illness, injury, or default - business closedown amounts to time lost - closedown was not a result of illness, injury, or default - employees were entitled to minimum wage during closedown.

  3. [2020] NZEmpC 236 Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 259 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 236 Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 18 December 2020) APPLICATION FOR STAY – Authority costs determination was not challenged – nothing to stay - APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff would have trouble paying if unsuccessful in his challenge – merits of challenge are questionable – plaintiff’s previous conduct suggests increased costs – security for costs ordered.

  4. [2020] NZEmpC 230 Arachchige v Rasier New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 398 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 230 Arachchige v Rasier New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 17 December 2020) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP – applicant is driver for Uber – applicant was previously a taxi driver running a business on his own account – applicant’s work was not exclusive to Uber – applicant was not vulnerable or lacking in comprehension – applicant was in control of work hours, equipment, and tax – applicant had ability to increase profitability in some ways – work is integral to Uber’s business but Uber lacked control over how it was undertaken – industry practice not a helpful consideration – applicant was not an employee of Uber.