Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 234 Bowen v National Australia Bank [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...[20] Ms Rendle took primary responsibility for supporting the protests to jurisdiction and the applications to dismiss the challenge. The recusal determination was described as being about the procedure of the Authority by reference to: (a) section 160(1) of the Act empowering the Authority to follow any procedure it considers appropriate; (b) section 173, headed “procedure”, requiring the Authority to comply with the principles of natural justice and to act in a manner that...

2. [2025] NZEmpC 76 Vegepod NZ Ltd v Lowe [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of unjustified dismissal; and, if so, (b) whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of permanent reinstatement. 1 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 127(4). 2 Section 3. 3 Humphrey v Canterbury District Health Board [2021] NZEmpC 59, [2021] ERNZ 153 at [6]-[9], citing NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd [2013] NZCA 90, (2013) 13 TCLR 531 at [12]- [13]. 4 See McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 127 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...changed the grounds it relied on for the terminations, it had relied on cl 53.1 of the CEA at the time of termination; the justification for proceeding as it did was the terms of the Vaccinations Order. This had been its position throughout. (c) Section 103A of the Act was not used to create a novel ground for dismissal. The CAA had a contractual right to terminate employment. Counsel accepted that the employer could be called on to justify its actions. If this occurre...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 147 MW v Spiga Ltd [pdf, 740 KB]

   ...Particular provisions relating to the Employment Relations Authority [26] Relevantly, the Authority may, in investigating any matter, decide that an investigation meeting should not be “in public” or “should not be open to certain 24 Sections 214 and 216. 25 Section 157(3). 26 Sections 157(3) and 189. 27 Section 143(f). 28 Sections 214 and 216. See also FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102, [2021] 1 NZLR 466 at [53]–[59]. For detailed analysis of the long history of this speci...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 44 Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...action against the employee. [52] It does not follow that strict adherence to s 103A(3) of the Act will render an action by an employer justifiable.4 The Court is not precluded from considering other factors that it thinks appropriate.5 [53] Section 103A(3) also does not mean that the employer’s conduct is to be put under a microscope and subjected to pedantic scrutiny, nor that unreasonably stringent procedural requirements are to be imposed.6 Slight or immaterial deviations fr...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 76 NZQA v Hickey [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...(b) The balance of convenience must be assessed. (c) The overall interests of justice are to be considered.11 [42] There are two parts to establishing if there is a serious question to be tried:12 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 127(1). 7 Section 127(4). 8 Section 3. 9 See the discussion in Humphrey v Canterbury District Health Board [2021] NZEmpC 59, [2021] ERNZ 153 at [5]–[7]. 10 NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd [2013] NZCA 90, (2013) 13 TCLR 531 at [12]–[13]; s...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 237 Gate Gourmet NZ Ltd and ors v Sandhu and Ors [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...because of decisions made by the employer but are otherwise ready, willing and able to work. [25] At the hearing, Gate submitted: (a) Gate can only have acted in breach of the MWA if the MWA applied to the defendants at the relevant time; (b) section 6 of the MWA only applies at times when employees are working; (c) being “ready, willing and able” to work is not the same thing as working; (d) earning wages and/or being contractually entitled to payment is not the...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 200 Jonas v Menefy Trucking Ltd [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...Act). The Court is required to consider, on an objective basis, whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal occurred. Section 103A(3) sets out certain non-exhaustive factors which the Court must consider in applying the test of justification. Of particular relevance are factors (c) and (d) which provide: 103A Test of justification ... (c) whether the...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 83 Wilson v Wilson [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...evidence of that witness, if he or she could reasonably be expected to be in a position to give admissible evidence on those matters. 2 The Court is not bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act, but may apply its provisions by analogy. 3 Section 92 codifies the common law requirement that a party must put its case. 4 The policy for doing so is uncontroversial especially where there are credibility issues. As Harrison J in Tootell v Police said: 5 This is a fundamental...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 145 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 940 KB]

    SERENITY PILGRIM, ANNA COURAGE, ROSE STANDTRUE, CRYSTAL LOYAL, PEARL VALOR AND VIRGINIA COURAGE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR INSPECTORATE [2022] NZEmpC 145 [18 August 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 145 EMPC 85/2022 IN THE MATTER OF a declaration under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000