Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 103 Muldoon v Nelson Marlborough DHB [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...Authority made no reference in its reasoning either to the collective agreement‟s definitions of work, or to s 66 of the Act governing fixed term employment, both of which are at the heart of this case. Fixed term employment – the statute [35] Section 66 of the Act provides (with passages pertinent to this case underlined): 66 Fixed term employment (1) An employee and an employer may agree that the employment of the employee will end— (a) at the close of a specified dat...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 67 Hokotehi Maori Trust v Prater [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...Act 2000 (the Act) were not precisely met, they would provide assistance in determining the present case. c) Relying on earlier dicta from this Court in Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan, it was argued that to qualify as “trauma” under the subsection, an employee would need to have suffered a “substantial injury” so that he or she was unable to properly consider raising the personal grievance.11 Further, the incapacity should exist for the whole of the 90-day period, and n...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 208 Soapi and Others v Pick Hawkes Bay Inc [pdf, 412 KB]

   SOAPI v PICK HAWKE’S BAY INCOPORATED [2025] NZEmpC 208 [15 September 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2025] NZEmpC 208 EMPC 197/2022 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN LYN SOAPI First Plaintiff AND DANNY LAU Second Plaintiff AND MARY LAU Third Plaintiff AND PICK HAWKE’S BAY

4. [2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...by the employer after a fair performance review process. [11] The Court decided, in a preliminary judgment, 1 that the pre-6 March 2015 s 33(2) of the Act applies to this case, Jacks having purported to cease bargaining in reliance on that section about two weeks before that section was abolished statutorily. So, not only is this case among, but not the, first to interpret and apply s 32, it will probably be among the last to do so as well, in view of that recent statutory cha...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 83 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 904 KB]

   ...point for this ground of objection was an attempt to establish a special relationship between the plaintiff and its advocate by referring to representatives being recognised by the Act, such as in ss 32(1)(d)(ii) and (iii), and 236(2). The former section requires a union and employer to recognise the role and authority of each other’s representative as an aspect of good faith. Section 32(1)(d)(ii) prevents attempts to circumvent the representative’s authority. Subparagraph (iii...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 101 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...information to be produced by Dr Thompson related to the period 1 January to 31 May 2020. The information to be produced by Dr Jansen related to the period 1 January to 31 May 2021. First issue - the challenge concerning the witness summons Section 179 [36] Section 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) allows parties to challenge a determination of the Authority that they are dissatisfied with, electing to have the matter heard by the Court. However, challe...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 81 Emmanuel v Waikato District Health Board [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...opportunity to respond to the allegations against her; and (iv) the Waikato DHB considered Mrs Emmanuel’s explanation prior to determining the outcome of the disciplinary process. The Waikato DHB had to act fairly and reasonably [37] Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) sets out the test for justification. In terms of process, that section requires the Court to consider whether how the employer acted was what a fair and reasonable employer could have...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 67 Bay of Plenty DHB v Rahiri [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...example, to replace an employee on parental leave or long term accident or sickness. There is no expectation of ongoing employment. Temporary agreements must not be used to deny staff security of employment. [36] It may be seen that the definition section did not attempt to define what has been called a “permanent” employee, probably more correctly in law, an employee of indefinite duration. It is possible, however, to discern and infer a definition of a permanent employee by p...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 74 Nelmac Ltd v Reunited Employees Assoc Inc [pdf, 339 KB]

   REUNITED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v NELMAC LIMITED [2023] NZEmpC 74 [16 May 2023] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2023] NZEmpC 74 EMPC 468/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN REUNITED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND NELMAC LIMITED Defendant EMPC 137/2022 AND IN THE

10. [2024] NZEmpC 127 Carrington Jade LP v Grant [pdf, 385 KB]

    ...concluding her message by saying Mr Tan had not allowed for an opportunity to engage in any sort of mediation process. Mr Tan did not reply.33 29 At [89]. 30 At [90]. 31 At [93]. 32 At [94]–[96]. 33 At [97]. [51] In the following section of the determination, the Authority considered whether the dismissal was justified. It found that it seemed to be a spontaneous action, which was taken without consultation, warning or notice of any kind. Mr Tan’s indicatio...