Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2025] NZEmpC 5 Harte v MERAS (Interlocutory (No 2) Judgment of Judge BA Corkill, 24 January 2025) Court has power to order compensatory relief under s 189 of the ERA, because in this proceeding there is a right to a remedy in respect of a cause of action founded on s161(1)(f). The controversy between the parties is not excluded under s161(1)(r)(r). Preliminary question answered accordingly

[2025] NZEmpC 7 LMN v STC (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge MS King, 24 January 2025) INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – SECURITY FOR COSTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE – plaintiff’s personal circumstances sufficient to displace principle of open justice – interim non-publication order granted – security for costs granted – risk of security for costs preventing plaintiff from pursuing challenge – extension of time granted to file amended statement of defence out of time

[2025] NZEmpC 3 Singh v McKee (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge MS King, 21 January 2025) OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE – CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION – RELEVANCE – wage and time records of other employees relevant to claims for arrears of wages – emails to accountant relevant to claims for arrears of wages – communications with business advisors not relevant to proceedings in light of pleadings – confidentiality issues can be resolved by appropriate directions – documents disclosed may only be used for purposes of proceeding – redactions of irrelevant information permitted

[2025] NZEmpC 1 Byrne v Coverstaff Recruitment Group Ltd [interlocutory judgment No 2 of Judge Kathryn Beck,15 January 2025] GOOD FAITH REPORT – EXTENT OF HEARING – DIRECTIONS – plaintiff filed de novo challenge to Authority determination – directions limiting nature and extent of challenge to non de novo challenge – remedies for unjustified dismissal – quantum of penalties for breaches of employment agreement – claim for unlawful deduction – plaintiff to comply with timetabling orders – plaintiff’s conduct will attract liability for costs

[2024] NZEmpC 254 Rookes v Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd (Judgment of KG Smith, 20 December 2024) APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CROSS-CHALLENGE – applicant had no intention of challenging until respondent filed non-de novo challenge – issue on cross-challenge unrelated to that on challenge – prejudice to respondent if application granted - application declined

[2024] NZEmpC 252 Soundhomes NZ Limited v Doughty (Judgment (No 6) of Judge Corkill, 18 December 2024) FREEZING ORDER – ANCILLARY ORDERS – lifting of freezing order over operating account providing living expenses – freezing order remaining over all other assets, with ancillary orders

[2024] NZEmpC 250 High Performance Sport New Zealand Ltd v The Athletes Cooperative Inc (Judgment of the full Court, 16 December 2024) CHALLENGE – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – INITIATION OF BARGAINING – VALIDITY OF BARGAINING NOTICE – DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE – UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES – defendant union representing elite athletes seeks to initiate collective bargaining with plaintiff – plaintiff does not employee athletes but does employ other employees – union can only initiate collective bargaining where in an employment relationship with employer – union only in an employment relationship with employer where nexus or relationship exists between union and employer – members of union must be employees of employer for union to initiate bargaining – union members seeking employment can be employees for the purposes of initiating collective bargaining where they are not strangers to the employer in contractual terms – plaintiff does not deal with members of union directly – plaint…

[2024] NZEmpC 248  Secretary for Education v Public Service Association (Judgment of Judge JC Holden, 13 December 2024 ( COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – whether wording required parties to agree on options for surplus staff – whether “case by case” meant on an individual basis – when viewed in context the PSA and Ministry must meet to attempt to agree on options available to surplus staff but, if agreement not reached, Ministry retains the ability to end employment at end of specified notice period – in context “case by case” here refers to restructuring process by restructuring process

[2024] NZEmpC 246 NHL v The Priory in New Zealand of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem judgment redacted (Judgment of  Judge J C Holden, 11 December 2024) INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION – CHALLENGE – challenge to Authority determination declining to order interim non-publication – publication may undermine health of plaintiff – publication may impact on plaintiff’s ability to perform role – insufficient evidence that publication will undermine future employment prospects of plaintiff – publication could lead to disclosure of private personal information – non-publication ordered with exceptions for employer – employer permitted to communicate about matter with staff for benefit of plaintiff – employer permitted to speak about the matter if acting as a referee for the plaintiff

[2024] NZEmpC 243  VSL v ZSM Limited (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 9 December 2024)APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION - application not opposed – significant cost associated with obtaining corroborating evidence – inferences - potential psychological consequences - application granted

[2024] NZEmpC 241 Soundhomes NZ Ltd v Doughty (Judgment (No 5) of Judge Corkill, 4 December 2024) CONSENT – freezing orders extended by consent

[2024] NZEmpC 239 Idea Services Ltd v Wishart (Consent Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 3 December 2024) Consent judgment

[2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd (judgment of Judge Holden, 2 December 2024) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – 90 DAYS – VACCINATION MANDATE – employer implemented vaccination mandate policy – employee complained – parties disagree on when grievances were raised – not every complaint or criticism will constitute a grievance – whether the employee intended to raise a grievance is not determinative – one email within the 90-day period was sufficient to raise a disadvantage grievance in respect of the vaccination policy – other communications were insufficient or sufficient but out of time – no grievance raised within time for unjustifiable dismissal – Employment Relations Authority to deal with the surviving unjustifiable disadvantage grievance