Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[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.

[2018] NZEmpC 149 Rauland NZ Ltd v Delvo (Interim Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 14 December 2018) APPLICATION FOR SEARCH ORDER – urgency and without notice appropriate – strong prima facie case established – order granted.

[2018] NZEmpC 148 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 10 December 2018) APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDER AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE – laptop and iPhone – BNZ proposal for preservation – whether grounds for preservation order established – proposal accepted but no orders made.

[2018] NZEmpC 146 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Judge B A Corkill, 6 December 2018) STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL – stay application granted pending appeal by defendant – fixture will not proceed.

[2018] NZEmpC 144 FGH v RST (Consent Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 6 December 2018) CONSENT – sum of $165,000– less applicable deductions to be paid to lawyers’ trust account.

[2018] NZEmpC 142 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.Com Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 3 December 2018) COSTS ON APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – whether costs should be fixed at this stage or reserved – if fixed, the level of costs - costs fixed in favour of defendant - $6,398.

[2018] NZEmpC 140 ITE v ALA (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 29 November 2018) APPLICATION FOR RESCISSION OR VARIATION OF ORDERS – reasons concern submissions on Protected Disclosures Act 2000 – orders have not been complied with and obligations remain– applicant does not come with clean hands – applications denied.

[2018] NZEmpC 138 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 21 November 2018) STANDING TO BRING JUDICIAL REVIEW – interpretation of s 184(1) and s 184(1A) – whether breach of natural justice grounds for judicial review – approach to ouster clauses considered – David and Parker considered – Parker distinguished – plaintiff has standing -challenge not possible – judicial review can be brought for alleged breach of natural justice where other avenues are closed.