Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2016] NZEmpC 23 Banks v Hockey Manawatu Inc - (Judgment of Judge A D  Ford, 21 March 2016) HEARING DE NOVO – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - good faith – whether dismissal unjustified - alleged attempt to vary terms and conditions of employment agreement - alleged refusal to attend mediation – application to file amended statement of claim – within interests of justice – no prejudice to defendant if granted – application to file amended claim granted – s103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether actions of employer were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done - procedural and substantive failures – Held, unjustified dismissal upheld – reinstatement impracticable – 10 per cent contributory conduct – plaintiff awarded $20,000 for compensation – loss of earnings awarded.

[2016] NZEmpC 21 Davidson v Kelly - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 15 March 2016) COMPLIANCE ORDER – Compliance order that defendant pay plaintiff $35,000 – issue as to interest is reserved

[2016] NZEmpC 19 O'Shea (Labour Inspector) v Pekanga O Te Awa Farms Ltd - (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 March 2016) CHALLENGE – QUANTUM OF PENALTY – whether more significant penalty should be imposed given multiple breaches of Minimum Wage Act 1983 and Holidays Act 2003 - appropriate to assess penalties in respect of each breach - necessary to consider totality of individual breaches to ensure proportionate outcome – not appropriate to impose global penalty – multiplicity of breaches aggravating factor - mitigating factors considered – Held, Respondent to pay $4,500 to the Crown - no order as to costs.

[2016] NZEmpC 18 Saomai v Prestige Demolition Services Ltd - (29 February 2016, Chief Judge Colgan) REFUSAL OF WITHOUT NOTICE FREEZING ORDER - REASONS FOR JUDGMENT –- no reference to applicant’s obligation to fully disclose all material facts including possible defences and information casting doubt on applicant’s ability to discharge obligations created by an undertaking as to damages –  no indication of proceedings having been filed or to be filed in the Authority pursuant to the Court’s Practice Direction on search and freezing orders - no mention in papers as to property to which a freezing order may have attached -  no draft order for consideration of Court - application did not specify any information about type of injunctive relief sought- there was no proposed duration of the order or other arrangements whereby the matter could be back before the Court after service on respondent - not possible to discern the terms of the order sought – no order relating to costs.

[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)