AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 603
AFFCO failed to demonstrate a very special reason to recall the Court's judgment; any overstated description of counsel's concession in paragraph [10] was immaterial because the second element of unlawful lockout was not before the Court on appeal, so the recall application is declined.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 603
- Parties
- Applicant: AFFCO New Zealand Limited; Respondent: New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (recall Application) / Recall Application Decided by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application to recall judgment declined
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Lockout, Statutory Interpretation of "employees" Under S82(1)(a)(iv), Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
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 and Related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (recall Application) / Recall Application Decided by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether seasonal meatworkers fall within the meaning of "employees" in s82(1)(a)(iv) of the Employment Relations Act 2000
- 2 Whether this Court should recall its earlier judgment to correct an alleged error in paragraph [10]
- 3 Whether the applicant could challenge the Employment Court's finding on the second element of unlawful lockout
Ratio Decidendi
AFFCO failed to demonstrate a very special reason to recall the Court's judgment; any overstated description of counsel's concession in paragraph [10] was immaterial because the second element of unlawful lockout was not before the Court on appeal, so the recall application is declined.
Court Disposition
Application to recall judgment declined
Orders
- Applicant ordered to pay costs to Respondent of $750 with usual disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 603 [14 December 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA700/2015[2016] NZCA 603BETWEEN AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERSAND RELATED TRADES UNIONINCORPORATED AND ORSRespondentHearing: On the papersCourt: Ellen France P, Harrison and Toogood JJCounsel: P F Wicks QC and G P Malone for ApplicantP Cranney and S R Mitchell for RespondentJudgment: 14 December 2016 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application to recall is declined.B The applicant is ordered to pay costs to the respondent of $750 with usual disbursements.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Harrison J)[1] In a judgment delivered on 6 October 20161 this Court dismissed an appeal by AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (AFFCO) against a decision of the Employment Court1 AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2016] NZCA 482, (2016) 10 NZELC 79-067.that it had unlawfully locked out workers,2 who are members of the New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc (the Union), from its seasonal processing plants in late 2014.[2] AFFCO has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and also applied to this Court to recall its judgment to correct what it says is an error in this paragraph:[10] As noted, a lockout requires proof of two elements: (a) an act by theemployer in refusing or failing to engage employees for any work "for which the employer usually employs employees"; and (b) the act must be carriedout with a view to compelling employees to accept terms of employment or comply with demands. Mr Wicks QC for AFFCO accepts, as he did in the Employment Court, that the second element was satisfied here. The contest relates to the first element: do the seasonal meatworkers fall within the meaning of employees as it is used in s 82(1)(a)(iv)?(AFFCO's emphasis.)[3] By way of brief background, AFFCO was granted leave to appeal to this Court on a question of law which was limited to the first of the two statutory elements of an unlawful lockout in s 82(1)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 20003 — that is, whether the Employment Court erred in finding that AFFCOhad refused or failed to engage employees for any work "for which the employer usually employs employees". The question on which leave to appeal was granted did not extend to the Employment Court's finding that AFFCO had breached the second element of an unlawful lockout — that its acts were carried out with a view to compelling employees to accept terms of employment or comply with its demands.[4] The transcript of argument in this Court discloses that Mr Wicks QC advised correctly that he was not in a position to challenge the Employment Court's findingon the second element of an unlawful lockout, which AFFCO was bound to accept as final. While [10] of our substantive judgment may have overstated Mr Wicks'advice, that is of no moment because the question was not live on appeal. As a result2 New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 204, (2015) 10 NZELC 79-057.3 AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2016] NZCA 121.of our finding against AFFCO on the first element, the Employment Court's decisionwas upheld.[5] Against this background, we do not accept Mr Wicks' submission that acorrection to [10] of our judgment is necessary as a matter of justice. AFFCO has not satisfied us that there is a very special reason for recalling a judgment.4 Its application is declined.[6] The Union filed a memorandum in opposition to AFFCO's application. AFFCO is ordered to pay costs to the Union of $750 with usual disbursements.Solicitors:C L Pidduck, AFFCO, Hamilton for ApplicantOakley Moran, Wellington for Respondent4 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633, affirmed in Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].