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

3630 items matching your search terms

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 122 Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School [PDF, 631 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 122 Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 27 July 2015)  DE NOVO CHALLENGE – UNJUSTIFIED SUSPENSION - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - whether suspension and dismissal were justified ––procedural and substantive flaws found - lack of specificity in claims against plaintiff- inadequate opportunity for plaintiff to be heard –– confidential information relied upon in investigation – terms of reference were too broad – no heed paid to earlier recommendations for urgent implementation of performance objectives – nonadherence to collective agreement in that distinction between performance and conduct issues not identified or considered – Held, disadvantage grievances established – compensation and costs awarded - reinstatement not reasonable or practical.
  5. [2015] NZEmpC 120 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Livingston [PDF, 113 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 120 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Livingston (Judgment of Judge A A Couch, 24 July 2015) DE NOVO CHALLENGE - Employee resigned without giving the full stipulated period of notice required under contract – employer withheld final pay as a result - whether provision of agreement relied upon by employer in order to withhold money from employee was enforceable in law – whether that provision should be seen as liquidated damages for breach of contract or as a penalty - whether employee should be penalised for neglecting to give required notice period – if so, what amount – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company principles considered – regard given to intention of parties at time agreement was entered into – no monetary loss suffered as result of failure to give full notice period – forfeiture clause was to compel employee to give requisite notice by holding threat of loss of wages over employee and as such was held to be penalty provision which in good conscience and equity the Court ough…
  13. [2015] NZEmpC 112 Vince Roberts Electrical v Carroll [PDF, 202 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 112 Vince Roberts Electrical v Carroll (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 14 July 2015)  IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – HOLIDAYS ACT – RAISING OF PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – whether liability was with company or individual – individual found to be liable on facts – when limitation should be applied to Holidays Act entitlements – time runs from end of employment – personal grievance – not raised sufficient for employer to address it – out of time.
  14. [2015] NZEmpC 109 Wellington City Transport Limited t/a Go Wellington v NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union [PDF, 142 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 109 Wellington City Transport Limited t/a “Go Wellington” v NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union - (Judgment of Judge Ford, 13 July 2015)  Issue of interpretation concerning calculation in relation to a retirement gratuity provision in collective employment agreement – Held, ordinary meaning adopted in relation to “week’s pay” – no need to incorporate additional words – challenge dismissed.
  16. [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
  22. [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…