Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2021] NZEmpC 160 Wilson v Manukau Institute of Technology (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 22 September 2021) APPLICATION FOR ORDER – reg 52 Employment Court Regulations 2000 – further disclosure directions made – application granted in part – APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – by consent respondent to disclosure further documents relevant to issue – evidence admissible but submissions may be made as to weight – application dismissed.

[2021] NZEmpC 158 HR Processing 2008 Ltd (formerly known as OSS Ltd (in liquidation)) (Costs judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 20 September 2021) APPLICATION FOR COSTS – company went into liquidation prior to determining quantum of costs – consent of liquidator not required – application for leave to file out of time not an “originating application” – application granted – guideline scale.

[2021] NZEmpC 156 Butt v Attorney-General sued on behalf of the Ministry of Health (Reasons for judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 20 September 2021) APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – affidavit discussing judicial settlement conference relevant to question of whether representation would induce reasonable person to enter into settlement – hearsay evidence about training costs relevant to question of what representations were made – in the interests of justice that evidence be before the Court – application declined.

[2021] NZEmpC 154 Jackson v The Aorere College Board of Trustees (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 16 September 2021) COSTS – guideline scale considered – costs awarded.

[2021] NZEmpC 152 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 3) of Judge J C Holden, 15 September 2021) APPLICATION TO STRIKE-OUT A PARTY – APPLICATION TO JOIN PARTIES – no basis to change parties – applications declined.

[2021] NZEmpC 150 Ututaonga v North Western Farms Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 14 September 2021) APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A CHALLENGE – delay was six months – other delays by the same party – Authority’s determination appears to be well founded – application declined.

[2021] NZEmpC 148 HG v Employment Relations Authority (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 9 September 2021) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS INTERVENER – Attorney-General in respect of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has direct and valid interest – application granted.

[2021] NZEmpC 146 Gafiatullina v Propellerhead Ltd (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 8 September 2021) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – REDUNDANCY – disestablishment of position was for sound financial reasons – disestablishment of position was substantively justifiable – process was not fair and reasonable – lack of discussion about redeployment – overall dismissal was unjustifiable – remedies awarded.

[2021] NZEmpC 144 Crossen v Yangs House Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 7 September 2021) COSTS – LEGAL AID – unsuccessful party was legally aided – no exceptional circumstances to justify award of costs – costs lie where they fall.

[2021] NZEmpC 142 Christieson v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 26 August 2021) INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – Authority returned employee to the payroll but not to the workplace - employee has arguable claim of unjustifiable dismissal – reinstatement would arguably be reasonable and practicable – company lacks trust and confidence in employee – problematic relationship with co-workers – employee to remain only on payroll.

[2021] NZEmpC 140 Ngawaka v Global Security Solutions Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge K G Smith, 23 August 2021) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCE – further evidence will be relevant – application granted.

[2021] NZEmpC 138 The 20 District Health Boards v New Zealand Nurses Organisation (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 23 August 2021) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATIONS – STRIKE – Authority has jurisdiction to make findings about interpretation or construction of the Act and therefore make declarations contained in a determination – whether life preserving services agreements under Code of Good Faith are binding on parties – agreement is not a binding contract but contains obligations that should be followed in good faith – breach of life preserving services agreement is not necessarily a breach of good faith but may be – compliance order may be available in some circumstances – Union did not breach good faith by insisting on only being bound to use best endeavours to comply with agreement – right to strike belongs to individual members and Union cannot require a member not to strike – declarations made.

[2021] NZEmpC 136 Brunning v Riccarton Florist Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 August 2021) APPLICATION TO ADJOURN HEARING – plaintiff wishes to focus on recovery of amounts already owing – application granted.