Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Hook v Stream Group (NZ) Pty Ltd

Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering

Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 183 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 1 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR ORDER ENTERING INTO JUDGMENT –  In March 2013 Court directed plaintiff to file amended statement of claim if it wished – Amended statement of claim filed – No amended statement of defence filed by defendant – Submitted that defendant accepted all allegations in pleadings – Necessary to file amended statement of defence only where fresh cause of action is introduced – Amended statement of claim discloses no new matters – Plaintiff only made inquiries three days prior to commencement of hearing – No prejudice suffered – Application refused.

George v Auckland Council [2013] NZEmpC 179 [Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 27 September 2013] UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – No evidence of bias or disparity of treatment on part of defendants – Fact that alternatives were open to defendants does not mean it was not entitled to commence informal disciplinary process – Dishonesty during disciplinary process capable of giving rise to dismissal – Unnecessary to conduct separate disciplinary process in respect of dishonesty allegations – Defendant had adequate basis to commence investigation into allegations –  Plaintiff given full notice of these concerns – Unlikely that heightened standards apply in disciplinary processes involving senior managers – No evidence defendant breached contractual obligations of good faith – Open to defendant to find that plaintiff had committed serious misconduct – Dismissal is what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in the circumstances – Claim dismissed BREACH OF CONTRACT – No evidence that bre…

Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2013] NZEmpC 182 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge ME Perkins, 27 September 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – Amendments sought in respect of damages claim for costs incurred in High Court and alleged breach of implied undertaking – Costs as damages claim not a new cause of action – Encompassed in broad claim for damages – Defendants opposition to grant of leave more akin to strike-out application – Defendant unlikely to suffer prejudice – Leave granted – APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION OF FREEZING ORDER – Circumstances have not materially changed since order originally granted – Concerns over financial position of defendant not diminished – Order renewed and continued.

Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd - interlocutory judgment of Judge A D Ford.

Tranzit Coachlines Wairarapa Ltd v Morgan [2013] NZEmpC 175 [Judgment of Full Court, 20 September 2013] HOLIDAY PAY – Holidays Act 2003 – Whether first defendants entitled to payment for Christmas Day – Employees available for additional work during school holiday periods – Authority therefore erred in finding first defendants on annual leave pursuant to s 40 – Question purely one of whether Christmas Day was otherwise a working day for first defendants under s 12 – Clear from evidence that Christmas Day would not otherwise be a working day – First defendants not entitled to payment.

Webb v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Inc [2013] NZEmpC 173 [Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 17 September 2013] COSTS – Proceedings brought by plaintiff struck out – Plaintiff opposes awarding of costs – Irregularities of defendant union brought to light by litigation – Forced to regularise positions relating to rules and elections – Plaintiff therefore obtained partial success – Discretion exercised not to award costs against plaintiff – Parties to bear own costs.

Fifita v Dunedin Casinos Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 171 [Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 12 September 2013] COSTS – Challenge to Authority costs determination – Plaintiff unjustifiably dismissed – Awarded only $6957 due to contribution to dismissal – Defendant had made earlier Calderbank offer of $8000 – Authority held costs should not follow the event – Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $5250 costs – Calderbank offer subject to condition of confidentiality – Principles applicable to Calderbank offers do not apply where conditional on confidentiality – Vindication often sought cannot be achieved – Significance of factor dependant on extent to which plaintiff actually achieved vindication through Authority investigation – Authority critical of plaintiff’s conduct – Net benefit in terms of reputation and vindication small – Weight therefore to be given to defendant’s Calderbank offer,  although not to same extent as Authority – No award of costs to be made in respect of Authority proceedings.

Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 168 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 5 September 2013] Order sought for conference of expert witnesses to be convened – Application declined – Hearing set for 30 September 2013 – Unrealistic to expect witnesses to convene and reach agreement prior to this date – Fixture cannot be jeopardised.

Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [2013] NZEmpC 166 [Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 5 September 2013]  Costs – Employment Relations Act – Clause 19, sch 3 – Defendant entitled to costs contribution of $5,500 in the Court and $1,500 in the Authority – Uplift in costs refused – Failure of plaintiff to attend judicial settlement conference not appropriate reason for uplift as process is voluntary – No inferences to be drawn against plaintiff’s motivation for challenge.

Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 165 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 4 September 2013] Objection to disclosure – Employment Court Regulations 2000 – Reg 39(2) – Whether party seeking penalty can rely upon privilege of non-disclosure – Statutory provisions of Act cannot be fettered or read down by 2000 Regulations – Regs 40 to 52 do not apply to either party where penalty is sought – Court preserves discretion pursuant to ss 189 and 221(d) to order disclosure where in overall interests of justice – Plaintiff not subject to penalty – No basis for non-disclosure put forward by defendant – Disclosure ordered.