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

3390 items matching your search terms

  1. [2015] NZEmpC 111 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [PDF, 65 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 111 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering (Consent Judgment of Judge Ford, 13 July 2015) CONSENT APPLICATION – Parties jointly requested Court to make payment from monies held in Court – held, orders granted - money to be paid for lost remuneration – money to be paid for compensation for hurt and humiliation – money to be paid in PAYE taxation on lost remuneration – remainder of funds to be held in Court’s interest-bearing account until final determination of costs
  7. [2015] NZEmpC 104 Shanmuganathan v PowerNet Ltd [PDF, 235 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 104 Shanmuganathan v PowerNet Ltd - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 2 July 2015)  PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - de novo challenge to determination of Employment Relations Authority – whether employer was justified in concluding there was serious misconduct warranting demotion – objective test applied regarding whether employer’s actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances - entailed consideration of whether investigation was sufficient – whether employer’s concerns were raised prior to action being taken – whether there was reasonable opportunity given to employee to respond to concerns – whether there was genuine consideration given to the employee’s explanations for the conduct – held, fair and reasonable employer could not find that tabling of an offensive email in a meeting constituted serious misconduct although could conclude it was misconduct - decision that serious misconduct occurred warranting demotion was unjustified – order…
  12. [2015] NZEmpC 99 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [PDF, 249 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 99 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 25 June 2015). REFERRAL OF QUESTION OF LAW FROM EMPLOYMENT RELATONS AUTHORITY - Authority sought answer to whether it was empowered to make an order for disclosure of documents which may be self-incriminatory – issue as to whether that was a question of law referred under s177 of Employment Relations Act 2000 or a partial removal of the Authority’s substantive proceeding pursuant to s178 – Authority clarified it was seeking an answer to a question of law pursuant to s177 – whether there are any prohibitions to the referral under s177 - consideration around whether discovery of documents subject to privilege against self-incrimination related to procedure or jurisdiction - Held, question of law did not relate to Authority’s procedure - Authority’s powers set out in s160 include power to require documents from parties - application to strike out the referral declined, m…
  13. [2015] NZEmpC 98 Premier Events Group Ltd Ors v Beattie [PDF, 160 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 98 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie (Interim Costs Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 24 June 2015) COSTS – whether costs can be awarded in incomplete proceedings – costs reserved on successful breach of contract claims against defendant – unpaid remuneration to defendant a discrete matter and $10,000 costs awarded – costs to 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs also awarded - $15,000 and $10,000 respectively –costs reserved on other matters of liability where all causes of action not yet settled.
  16. [2015] NZEmpC 94 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 262 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 94 New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand  (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 17 June 2015) APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY AND INTERIM INJUNCTION – WHETHER UNLAWFUL LOCKOUT – seasonal workers – injunction sought to prevent company from offering new terms and conditions on individual agreements – whether plaintiffs have arguable case as “prospective employees” – historical overview of relevant case law – consideration of what constitutes lawful lockout – arguable case established – balance of convenience and overall justice favour defendant – injunctions declined – reminder of objectives of the Act.