Judgments of note 2024
Employment Court - Judgments of note 2024
[2024] NZEmpC 251 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v NZ PSA Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi [PDF, 263 KB] (Judgment of the full Court, 16 December 2024) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - PROHIBITED PREFERENCE - terms and conditions should be considered as a whole to determine whether prohibited preference - no preference in the circumstances - PASSING ON - remuneration was passed on to non-union employees - passing on was with the intention of undermining collective agreement but did not have that effect - no breach of good faith.
[2024] NZEmpC 250 High Performance Sport New Zealand Ltd v The Athletes Cooperative Inc [PDF, 289 KB] (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 – plaintiff provides funding and services through third-party organisations – no prior or mutually intended future employment relationship between plaintiff and union members – members of union not employees of plaintiff under extended definition of the word employee – union did not validly initiate bargaining with employer – plaintiff not required to participate in collective bargaining with union
[2024] NZEmpC 248 Secretary for Education v Public Service Association [PDF, 456 KB] (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 179 FDE v UWV [PDF, 574 KB](Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 19 September 2024) APPLICATION FOR NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – Spiga factors applied – application granted
[2024] NZEmpC 147 MW v Spiga Ltd [PDF, 740 KB] (Judgment of the Full Court, 8 August 2024) NON-PUBLICATION – SCHEDULE 2 CLAUSE 10 AND SCHEDULE 3 CLAUSE 12 OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000 – breach of a settlement agreement signed under s 149 – Employment Relations Authority declined non-publication of plaintiff’s name – MAJORITY JUDMENT – open justice is fundamental – may be departed from only to extent necessary to serve interests of justice – evidential standard of specific adverse consequences reasonably expected to occur – non-exhaustive list of factors that may be relevant including tikanga and equity and good conscience – CONCURRING JUDGMENT – broad statutory discretion – no presumption against non-publication – evidence is not necessary – open justice is relevant but is not the starting point – access to justice, tikanga and other values are also relevant – ORDERS – challenge succeeds and permanent non-publication ordered.
[2024] NZEmpC 123 Wiles v University of Auckland [PDF, 536 KB] (Judgment of Judge J Holden, 8 July 2024) DISADVANTAGE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – GOOD FAITH – HEALTH AND SAFETY – ACADEMIC FREEDOM – TREATY OF WAITANGI – employee experienced harassment as a result of her work for University – University breached health and safety obligations by failing to provide adequate protection and support – University should have moved more quickly – employee was disadvantaged by University’s failures – University did not act in good faith and engaged in a way that was combative rather than supportive – University did not impede academic freedom of employee – individual staff members do not have treaty obligations – even if they do have treaty obligations, the employee was not prevented from complying with any such obligations – general damages/compensation of $20,000 ordered – no penalties ordered – no recommendations made
[2024] NZEmpC 104 Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand v New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc [PDF, 304 KB](Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 13 June 2024) APPLICATION FOR STRIKE OUT – legality of strike notice is moot because strike already occurred – no reason to exercise discretion to consider application despite mootness – proceedings struck out - APPLICATION FOR JOINDER – no joinder required because proceedings are struck out.
[2024] NZEmpC 101 Auckland One Rail Ltd v Rail and Maritime Transport Union [PDF, 286 KB] (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 12 June 2024) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION – strike notice given – arguable but weak claim that strike notice was not valid – balance of convenience points against interim injunction – application dismissed