AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC [2016] NZCA 121
The Court granted leave because the three specified questions raise issues of law that are of general or public importance under s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000; the separate natural justice complaint did not meet that threshold and leave was refused on that point.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 121
- Parties
- Applicant: AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; First Respondent: NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC; Second Respondents: ROBERTA KEREWAI RATU AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Court / Leave Application Granted in Part
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on three specified questions of law; leave refused on a fourth natural justice question; no order for costs on the application for leave.
- Legal Topics
- Employment Agreements, Seasonal Layoff, S 82(1)(a)(iv), S 61(2)(b), Leave to Appeal, Good Faith and Natural Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant
NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC
First Respondent
ROBERTA KEREWAI RATU AND OTHERS
Second Respondents
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Court / Leave Application Granted in Part
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Court erred in holding second respondents were engaged on indefinite employment agreements so that layoff did not terminate employment
- 2 Whether s 82(1)(a)(iv) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies if there is no employment relationship in the off season
- 3 Whether AFFCO's new individual employment agreement complied with s 61(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave because the three specified questions raise issues of law that are of general or public importance under s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000; the separate natural justice complaint did not meet that threshold and leave was refused on that point.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on three specified questions of law; leave refused on a fourth natural justice question; no order for costs on the application for leave.
Orders
- No order for costs on the application for leave
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC [2016] NZCA 121 [13 April 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA700/2015[2016] NZCA 121BETWEEN AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS &RELATED TRADES UNION INCFirst RespondentROBERTA KEREWAI RATU ANDOTHERSSecond RespondentsHearing: 14 March 2016 (further submissions received 17 March 2016)Court: Harrison, Wild and Cooper JJCounsel: P F Wicks QC and G P Malone for ApplicantP Cranney and S R Mitchell for RespondentsJudgment: 13 April 2016 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Employment Court in New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd is granted.1B The questions of law for determination by this Court are:21. Did the Employment Court err in finding the second respondents were engaged by AFFCO New Zealand Ltd on employment agreements of indefinite duration with the result that employment1 New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 204.2 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.was not terminated when they were laid off at the end of the season?2. Did the Employment Court err in holding that s 82(1)(a)(iv) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applied even if there was no employment relationship between AFFCO New Zealand Ltd and the second respondents in the off season?3. Did the Employment Court err in holding that AFFCO New Zealand Ltd's new form of individual employment agreement did not comply with s 61(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000?C There will be no order for costs on the application for leave given thatthe respondents' opposition was reasonable.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Cooper J)[1] We are satisfied that the three questions set out above meet the requirement of s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 which stipulates that leave may only be granted for an appeal from the Employment Court if the question of law involved is one that by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.[2] The appellant also sought leave in respect of a fourth question, which would ask whether the Employment Court acted in breach of natural justice by reaching a conclusion that AFFCO New Zealand Ltd had breached an obligation to act in good faith without sufficient evidence and without AFFCO New Zealand Ltd being afforded the opportunity to be heard. We are satisfied that that question could not be characterised as one that by reason of its general or public importance, or for any other reason should be submitted to this Court for decision.[3] There will be no order for costs on the application for leave given that therespondents' opposition was reasonable.Solicitors:Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondents