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

3638 items matching your search terms

  1. [2016] NZEmpC 2 Northern Amalgamated Workers Union of NZ v Golden Bay Cement [PDF, 205 KB]

    [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

  2. [2015] NZEmpC 232 Bidvest New Zealand Limited v FIRST Union Inc reasons for interlocutory [PDF, 132 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 232 Bidvest New Zealand Limited v FIRST Union Inc (Reasons for interlocutory judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 21 December 2015). INTERIM INJUNCTION – notice of intention to strike – whether action unlawful because employees engaged in essential service – question of fact and degree in a particular case – arguable case established – balance of convenience and overall justice favoured granting of interim injunction – parties directed to mediation.

  3. [2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd [PDF, 365 KB]

    [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.

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 225 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd [PDF, 206 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 225 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd, (judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 16 December 2015). FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS – REVISITING FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS - claim of breach of settlement agreement – whether challenge to settlement containing “full and final settlement” clause was frivolous and vexatious – part of a matter cannot be dismissed on such grounds – meaning of ‘frivolous’ considered – not the same as lacking legal merit – must be impossible to take seriously – in some circumstances full and final settlement may be revisited – Authority to proceed with investigation.

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius [PDF, 146 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius, (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 December 2015) EXTENSION OF TIME – whether application to lodge challenge out of time should be granted – whether justice of case justifies extension – no prejudice caused to respondent due to delay – partial compliance in that it was filed in time but fee was paid late – it would be unfair for applicant to be denied possibility of challenge – Held, leave to extend time granted, filing fee to be accepted by Registrar - costs to lie where they fall

  6. [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs [PDF, 67 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs, (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 10 December 2015. COSTS – whether costs were reasonably incurred – starting point of 66 per cent of costs reasonably incurred – whether factors justify an increase or decrease from that starting point – award of costs is discretionary – court not persuaded to make any adjustment to the usual starting point – disbursements considered and allowed in part – Held, plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements in total sum of $17,535.

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 108 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 9 December 2015) IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL COURT’ ORDERS – position at Wairoa works– need to identify affected employees – allegations of disadvantageous shift work and denial of overtime for some Union employees – Union claim for past losses – applications by Union for facilitation and by AFFCO that bargaining has concluded – timetable for further applications.

  8. [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh [PDF, 78 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh (Oral Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 7 December 2015)  NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE – COSTS - plaintiff failed to file bundle – strike out application made – pre-empted by notice of discontinuance by liquidator – costs of $8,920 against plaintiff

  9. [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory [PDF, 160 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory, (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 3 December 2015) . ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE – whether proposed evidence is beyond the scope of expert’s specialised knowledge and skill – whether the evidence substantially helps the Court – Evidence Act 2006 considered – given the technical nature of the health and safety issues to be considered in the case the threshold for admissibility is met for all paragraphs of the brief of evidence except for para 69 - Held, intended evidence is admissible apart from para 69 of the brief.