Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2017] NZEmpC 24 Tradefog Global Co Ltd v Batholomeusz (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 8 March 2017 IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – whether joining a party by Authority is precluded from challenge under s 179(5) – case law on s 179(5) considered – challenges dismissed.

[2017] NZEmpC 21 Sheath v The Selwyn Foundation and ors (Consent Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 1 March 2017) CONSENT – terms of settlement agreed – Authority determination set aside.

[2017] NZEmpC 19 Lewis v Silver Fern Farms Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 23 February 2017) COSTS – consideration of principles to be applied – not a test case - costs on costs also awarded – costs of $5,740 awarded in favour of defendant.

[2017] NZEmpC 17 Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust v Yao (Judgment as to costs on discontinuance of Judge M E Perkins, 23 February 2017) DISCONTINUANCE OF CHALLENGE – costs on discontinuance – principles considered and applied – costs of $2,072 awarded in favour of defendant.

[2017] NZEmpC 15 Spotless Facility Services NZ Ltd v Mackay (Judgment (No 2) of Judge B A Corkill, 22 February 2017) DISADVANTAGE GRIEVANCE – s 122 considered – adequacy of investigation of stress issues – lack of response to raising of concerns – unjustified disadvantage under s 122 found – compensation of $2000 awarded.

[2017] NZEmpC 13 Lewis v Immigration Guru Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 16 February 2017) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CHALLENGE OUT OF TIME – relevant principles and interests of justice considered – application for leave granted.

[2017] NZEmpC 11 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins in respect of 1) Application for wasted costs order; 2) first amended application for further and better discovery in respect of electronic documents etc, 15 February 2017) APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS ORDER – APPLICATION FOR FURTHER AND BETTER DISCOVERY – prior hearing concerning outstanding applications adjourned due to amended statement of claim – wasted costs could have been avoided by informing opposing counsel and Court of amended pleadings – $10,000 wasted costs ordered against plaintiff –case law and factors relevant to further discovery considered – existence of further documents speculative – discovery process disproportionate to claim – plaintiff’s further discovery application declined – further particular discovery of certain documents ordered.

[2017] NZEmpC 9 Cooper v CMP Canterbury Ltd (Consent Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 13 February 2017) CONSENT – confidential terms – consent order made.

[2017] NZEmpC 7 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc (Interlocutory Judgment (No 5) of Judge B A Corkill, 31 January 2017) STRIKE – orders previously set out should apply to this strike – application to restrain strike declined.

[2017] NZEmpC 5 Edminstin v Sanford Ltd (Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 27 January 2017) RECALL OF WITNESS – REASONS – disclosure and inspection ongoing obligations – plaintiff sought orders but need to do also plaintiff responsibility therefore no costs in favour of successful applicant.

[2017] NZEmpC 3 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc (Interlocutory Judgment (No 4) of Judge B A Corkill, 26 January, 2017) STRIKE – orders made for preceding strike period carried over to a third strike by consent – issue of validity of notice for latest strike to be heard.

[2017] NZEmpC 1 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc (Interlocutory Judgment No.2 of Judge B A Corkill, 6 January, 2017) APPLICATION TO ALLOW LIMITED PICKETING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS – concerns raised by court appropriately addressed – arrangements made over timing and location of picket line so that others not obstructed in passing the line – specific orders made endorsing conditions offered by MUNZ – no orders made against third party.

[2016] NZEmpC 177 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer (Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 23 December 2016) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - DISCRIMINATION– whether defendant subjected to unlawful discrimination (involvement in union activities) – consideration of statutory scheme of s 103(1)(c) - disparity – dismissal not a conclusion and reasonable employer could have made - challenge dismissed - contribution lowered and compensation increased  to $12,800.