Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2016] NZEmpC 15 Holman v CTC Aviation Training (NZ) Ltd (Interlocutory judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 26 February 2016) RE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND STATEMENT OF DEFENCE – principles for granting leave discussed – discretion to be exercised to best achieve justice – must be basis for court to exercise discretion – must weigh injustice to parties – reasons for not making application for setting down to be considered – whether irreparable damage will be suffered by applicant if order declined – Held, application for leave to amend statement of defence granted – order for costs against defendant – quantum of costs to be determined

 [2016] NZEmpC 14 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd - (Costs judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 25 February 2016) COSTS – Held, defendant to pay plaintiff sum of $204.44 by way of disbursements within two working days

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are ordered, 19 February 2016.

[2016] NZEmpC 12 Auckland International Airport Ltd v APC (Oral Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 18 February 2016).  ORAL JUDGMENT – Non appearance by first respondent – procedural and substantive changes to be made in interests of justice – dismissal of order for non publication of previous two judgments provided no identification of first respondent – particulars of alleged fraud will not be revealed in subsequent judgments – court file not to be inspected by any person without leave of Court – extension of persons exempt from non-publication orders to include Serious Fraud Office and Police – orders to apply until further order of Court – amount covered by freezing order increased – first respondent recourse to bank accounts revised - first respondent to disclose full nature, extent and value of her assets - costs reserved.

[2016] NZEmpC 11 Titoki Securities Trust v Wallace (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 16 February 2016).  COSTS – costs upon discontinuation of challenge – defendant of limited financial means so limited lawyer representation – opposition to application for costs based on lack of legal representation and costs being unrelated or unnecessarily incurred – general starting point is two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs incurred – no factors to increase or decrease from that starting point - defendant was right to take steps she did and costs incurred were reasonable and proper - Held, plaintiff to pay $300 towards defendant’s costs.

[2016] NZEmpC 7 Z Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill,11 February 2016). APPLICATION FOR COMPLIANCE ORDERS – return-to-work arrangements– matter of statutory interpretation - company ordered to re-engage ‘based-on iea’ workers on day shift before night shift as required by seniority provision – infringement of s 97 – company given time-limited opportunity to meet obligations– issue of compliance order adjourned – calculation of loss of remuneration to be by joint memoranda – eligibility of 5 persons – leave to apply for directions reserved.

[2016] NZEmpC 3 HUNZA Productions Ltd v E Lighting Ltd (Interlocutory judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 4 February 2016)   ORDER FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF AUTHORITY’S ORDERS – consent of parties – sums awarded against plaintiff to be lodged with Registrar of the Employment Court on interest bearing deposit.

[2016] NZEmpC 2 Northern Amalgamated Workers Union of NZ v Golden Bay Cement - (Judgment of Judge Ford for the full Court, 1 February 2016)   DE NOVO CHALLENGE - SECTION 9 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000 - whether provision in collective employment agreement (CEA) conferred unlawful preference on members of the Union – whether a provision is unlawful that provides that vacancies will first be opened to permanent employees covered by the CEA – intention was to recognise benefits of a CEA or benefits arising out of relationship on which CEA was based rather than union membership - provision recognised benefits which could only be achieved through a CEA and the relationship arising from such an agreement - unions and employers free to negotiate and agree upon terms and conditions in a CEA which might otherwise infringe upon prohibition on preference – challenge successful - costs reserved

[2016] NZEmpC 1 Kilpatrick v Air New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 13 January 2016) - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – behaviour sufficient for employer to conduct investigation -plaintiff unco-operative –no breaches of contract -  many attempts to engage plaintiff in disciplinary process – challenge dismissed.(HTML version)

[2015] NZEmpC 195 IAG NZ Limited v Boulger (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 21 December 2015) APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT – granted on two conditions – first, sums awarded against plaintiff to be lodged with Registrar of the Employment Court – second, plaintiff to attend court to address allegations of judicial corruption.

[2015] NZEmpC 227 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers Union (Costs Judgment of Judge Corkill, 18 December 2015) Plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant $6,408.88 in costs.

[2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd, (Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 17 December 2015). DECLARATION – AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? - FACILITATED BARGAINING – declaration regarding employer's assertion that bargaining for collective agreement concluded on specific date without settlement of a collective agreement – application for order directing parties to facilitated bargaining – whether breach of good faith – s 33 Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds – place of remuneration in collective agreements and confidentiality of employment terms – whether bargaining was unduly protracted – whether extensive efforts failed to resolve difficulties and precluded parties from entering into agreement - Held, Bargaining not lawfully ended under former s 33 - Authority to accept application for facilitated bargaining – plaintiff entitled to costs but no time limit imposed on application.