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

3390 items matching your search terms

  3. [2011] NZEmpC 172 [PDF, 118 KB]

    Grant v Vice-Chancellor of University of Otago Parties agreed to Authority issuing recommendation under s 173A. Recommendation would become determination if parties did not object after 10 days. Plaintiff's counsel sought extension of time and defendant and Authority agreed. Plaintiff was not personally consulted. Defendant objected to the recommendation which was favourable to the plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that objection was too late as variation of deadline was not valid. Authority concluded variation valid. Court held it was not barred by ss 179 or 188 from deciding merits as issue was not procedural but substantive question concerning whether Authority had power to extend time. Effects of s 173A discussed. No requirement that variation be consented to personally. Variation, agreed by the parties, accepted by the Authority, and recorded properly can be made at any time up until the expiry of the period set by the Member for objection. No requirement that Authority had to redo the …
  11. [2011] NZEmpC 160 Angus & McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [PDF, 154 KB]

    [Full Court, 2 December 2011] - Full Court judgment providing guidance on the interpretation and application of ss 103A and 125 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, as amended with effect from 1 April 2011. Change from "would" to "could" in s 103A held to be neither ineffectual nor insignificant. Court held that the legislation contemplates that there may be more than one fair and reasonable response that might justifiably be applied by a fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances. Amended s 103A confirms the need for an objective approach and the requirement for procedural fairness, while expressing that minor error will not result in a dismissal being unjustified. Remedy of reinstatement under amended s 125 has no more or less prominence than the other statutory remedies for unjustified disadvantage or unjustified dismissal. In addition, the Court or Authority must be satisfied that reinstatement is both practicable in any particular case and that it is reasonable to make…