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

3526 items matching your search terms

  1. [2022] NZEmpC 217 Karunanayake v FED [PDF, 191 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 217 Karunanayake v FED (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 30 November 2022) NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT – defendant was an employee – defendant must be paid for work done – unpaid wages and holiday pay awarded – NON-PUBLICATION – Court recognises publication of the defendant’s name may harm future employment prospects – proceedings were simply taken to enforce minimum employment standards and should not result in such consequences – non-publication granted for defendant – non-publication not granted for plaintiff.

  2. [2022] NZEmpC 207 Arohanui Hospice Service Trust v New Zealand Nurses Organisation [PDF, 190 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 207 Arohanui Hospice Service Trust v New Zealand Nurses Organisation (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 22 November 2022) PUBLIC HOLIDAYS - INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT - whether public holiday would otherwise be a "working day" - collective agreement contains agreement on what days would otherwise be working days - definition of "fixed" - clause applies to any employee that does not work on fixed days of the week.

  3. [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [PDF, 216 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 9 November 2022) INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – serious issue to be tried on unjustifiable dismissal – no vacant position to reinstate employee into – employee’s post-termination conduct was “extreme” – permanent reinstatement not seriously arguable – balance of convenience and interests of justice point against reinstatement – interim reinstatement not ordered.

  4. [2022] NZEmpC 200 Stewart v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 309 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 200 Stewart v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 8 November 2022) AVAILABILITY PROVISION – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISADVANTAGE – availability provision was included in employment agreement – employee was disadvantaged by existence of the clause regardless of whether it was strictly enforced – parties to resolve remedies – personal grievance was raised within time, as limitation period started when employee learned that the availability provision was invalid – remedies start from the date of availability provision being signed – Employment Court has jurisdiction to consider a quantum meruit claim.