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

  2. [2022] NZEmpC 78 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Manufacturing & Construction Workers Union [PDF, 409 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 78 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Manufacturing & Construction Workers Union (Judgment of the Full Court, 11 May 2022) INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT - IMPLICATION OF TERM - DRUG TESTING - whether term should be implied to allow employer to select method of drug testing - parties cannot be understood to have agreed on the correct approach - term sought is not so obvious it goes without saying - implication of term is not appropriate.
  6. [2022] NZEmpC 75 Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc [PDF, 314 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 75 Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 9 May 2022) REST AND MEAL BREAKS – Employment Relations Act 2000, pt 6D – work period – split shifts – work period is question of fact – whether distinct shifts worked are separate work periods is to be calculated by reference to actual hours an employee is required to perform work duties which include authorised rest and meal breaks in that period and in light of what has been expressly agreed by parties – bus drivers. 
  19. [2022] NZEmpC 62 Craighead Diocesan School Board of Proprietors v Thompson [PDF, 250 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 62 Craighead Diocesan School Board of Proprietors v Thompson (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 6 April 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PROCEEDING – ss 174E and s 179(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 – Minimum Wage Order – Authority dismissed defence that defendant was paid an all-inclusive salary – Authority determined that allowance not part of defendant’s remuneration for calculation of minimum wage – Rejecting defence involved findings of fact by the Authority and not challenging that conclusion would put party in a position where an attempt to dispute them after the next stage of the Authority’s investigation would be time barred by s 179(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 – Application declined.
  21. [2022] NZEmpC 60 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v Darnley [PDF, 200 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 60 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v Darnley (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 30 March 2022) RECALL – VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES – SLIP RULE – substantive judgment contained an erroneous date –  length of delay only relevant under s 114 if exceptional circumstances exist - error had no impact on the outcome – did not provide an opportunity to revisit conclusions or reframe arguments – interests of justice and finality considered – recall application declined – error corrected under slip rule.