NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS & PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION WELLINGTON INCORPORATED v TRANZURBAN HUTT VALLEY LIMITED [2022] NZCA 429
The Court of Appeal granted leave because the interpretation of 'work period' in s 69ZC raises a question of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court held that rest and meal breaks are calculated by reference to hours when an employee has work responsibilities and that whether split shifts are...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZCA 429
- Parties
- Applicant: New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Incorporated; Respondent: Tranzurban Hutt Valley Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified question of law
- Legal Topics
- Rest and Meal Breaks, Work Period Definition, Split Shifts, S 69 ZC Employment Relations Act 2000, 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
New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Incorporated
Applicant
Tranzurban Hutt Valley Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the term 'work period' in s 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000 includes gaps between split shifts
- 2 Whether separate split shifts constitute separate 'work periods' for entitlement to rest and meal breaks
- 3 Whether the Employment Court erred in its interpretation of s 69ZC
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal granted leave because the interpretation of 'work period' in s 69ZC raises a question of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court held that rest and meal breaks are calculated by reference to hours when an employee has work responsibilities and that whether split shifts are separate work periods is a factual question.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the specified question of law
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted in respect of the question: Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS & PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNIONWELLINGTON INCORPORATED v TRANZURBAN HUTT VALLEY LIMITED [2022] NZCA 429 [12September 2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA274/2022[2022] NZCA 429BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS & PUBLICPASSENGER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEESUNION WELLINGTON INCORPORATEDApplicantAND TRANZURBAN HUTT VALLEYLIMITEDRespondentCourt: Courtney and Katz JJCounsel: P Cranney for ApplicantD D Vincent and R J Bayer for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)12 September 2022 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTLeave to appeal is granted in respect of the question set out in [4] (TranzurbanHutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport EmployeesUnion Wellington Inc [2022] NZEmpC 75).____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)[1] The New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport EmployeesUnion Wellington Inc (the Union) applies for leave to appeal a decision of theEmployment Court.1 This Court may grant leave if satisfied that the application forleave raises a question of law of general or public importance.2[2] The issue before the Employment Court was the correct interpretation of theterm "work period" in s 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation toworkers working split shifts, specifically whether, for the purposes of determining anemployee's entitlement to rest and meal breaks, each split shift constitutes a separate"work period". The Employment Relations Authority held that it did.3 TheEmployment Court allowed Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd's appeal against theAuthority's decision.4 It held that rest and meal breaks were to be calculated byreference to hours when an employee has work responsibilities.5 This calculationwould not include periods when the employee is not engaged for work.6 Thus, it waspossible for separate shifts to constitute separate "work periods".7 The EmploymentCourt held that whether distinct shifts were separate "work periods" was a question offact, to be calculated by reference to the actual hours an employee is required toperform work duties, and the terms of their employment agreement.8[3] We are satisfied that the threshold for leave in s 214(3) of theEmployment Relations Act is met.[4] Leave is granted on the question:Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 69ZC of theEmployment Relations Act 2000?Solicitors:Oakley Moran, Wellington for ApplicantCS Law, Wellington for Respondent1 Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport EmployeesUnion Wellington Inc [2022] NZEmpC 75 [Employment Court decision].2 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).3 New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union v Tranzurban HuttValley Ltd [2021] NZERA 342.4 Employment Court decision, above n 1, at [66].5 At [62].6 At [45]–[46].7 At [63].8 At [64].