METROPOLITAN GLASS AND GLAZING LIMITED v LABOUR INSPECTOR, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020] NZCA 264
The Court granted leave to appeal because the question whether the Employment Court was wrong to treat short term incentive bonus payments as required payments under employment agreements and thus as "gross earnings" under s 14 of the Holidays Act 2003 is a question of law appropriate for appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZCA 264
- Parties
- Applicant: Metropolitan Glass and Glazing Limited; Respondent: Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 June 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Definition of Gross Earnings, Short Term Incentive Bonus, Employment Agreement Obligations, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Metropolitan Glass and Glazing Limited
Applicant
Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether payments made from the applicant's short term incentive bonus scheme are "payments that the employer is required to pay to the employee under the employee's employment agreement" and therefore fall within the definition of "gross earnings" under s 14 of the Holidays Act 2003
- 2 Whether the Employment Court erred in law in reaching that conclusion
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal because the question whether the Employment Court was wrong to treat short term incentive bonus payments as required payments under employment agreements and thus as "gross earnings" under s 14 of the Holidays Act 2003 is a question of law appropriate for appeal.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Approved question of law: Did the Employment Court err in law by concluding that payments made by the applicant from its short term incentive bonus scheme were "payments that the employer is required to pay to the employee under the employee's employment agreement", and therefore fell within the definition of "gross...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
METROPOLITAN GLASS AND GLAZING LIMITED v LABOUR INSPECTOR, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS,INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2020] NZCA 264 [29 June 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA246/2020[2020] NZCA 264BETWEEN METROPOLITAN GLASS ANDGLAZING LIMITEDApplicantAND LABOUR INSPECTOR, MINISTRY OFBUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTRespondentCourt: Kós P and Clifford JCounsel: J M Roberts for AppellantA Scott-Howman and C English for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)29 June 2020 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted.B The approved question of law is:Did the Employment Court err in law by concluding thatpayments made by the applicant from its short term incentivebonus scheme were "payments that the employer is requiredto pay to the employee under the employee's employmentagreement", and therefore fell within the definition of "grossearnings" under s 14 of the Holidays Act 2003?____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Kós P)[1] The application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Employment Courtin Metropolitan Glass & Glazing Ltd v Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business,Innovation and Employment is granted.1[2] The approved question of law is:Did the Employment Court err in law by concluding that payments made bythe applicant from its short term incentive bonus scheme were "payments thatthe employer is required to pay to the employee under the employee'semployment agreement", and therefore fell within the definition of "grossearnings" under s 14 of the Holidays Act 2003?Solicitors:Hesketh Henry, Auckland for AppellantCrown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 Metropolitan Glass & Glazing Ltd v Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation andEmployment [2020] NZEmpC 39.