SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED V SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INCORPORATED CA CA434/07

SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED V SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INCORPORATED CA CA434/07 19 November 2007IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA434/07 [2007] NZCA 514BETWEEN SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED Appellant AND SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INCORPORATED Respondent Hearing: 12 November 2007 Court: William Young P, Glazebrook and Chambers JJ Counsel: C H Toogood QC and S N Wilson for Appellant P Cranney and A Hughes for Respondent Judgment: 19 November 2007 at 3 pmINTERIM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application is adjourned for further consideration on Monday 18 February 2008.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by William Young P) [1] Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd ("Spotless") seeks leave to appeal from an Employment Court judgment (Chief Judge Colgan) which was announced on 23 July 2007. The reasons were subsequently delivered on 27 July 2007.[2] In issue was the lawfulness of a lockout, the alleged purpose of which was to reinforce demands by Spotless of the Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc and its members to provide cover at hospitals for striking union members engaged in actual or anticipated rolling strikes. The lockout notices invoked s 84 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 ("the Act") which provides:84 Lawful strikes and lockouts on grounds of safety or healthParticipation in a strike or lockout is lawful if the employees who strike have, or the employer who locks out has, reasonable grounds for believing that the strike or lockout is justified on the grounds of safety or health.[3] In the judgment under challenge, the Chief Judge held that the lockout was not within s 82 of the Act because the demand which was reinforced by the lockout was unlawful as inconsistent with the rights of the Union and its members to strike. He did not address what we understand were other challenges to the validity of the lockout including the contention that the s 84 justification was not made out. [4] Mr Cranney was able to persuade us that it would be premature to grant leave to appeal. If this Court found that the Chief Judge's conclusion on the unlawfulness of Spotless' underlying demand was wrong, other challenges to the lawfulness of the lockout would require adjudication either in this Court or the Employment Court. Downstream of the Chief Judge's conclusion that the lockout was unlawful is a claim for unpaid wages which has now been heard by the Chief Judge who has reserved his decision. It is conceivable that the findings of the Chief Judge on that claim may be relevant to the question whether leave should be granted (as they may throw some light on the strength or otherwise of the other challenges). In any event, it is possible that there may be appeals against the unpaid wages claim judgment and if so, associated leave questions are best dealt with in conjunction with the present application. [5] Accordingly we adjourn the application to Monday 18 February 2008 by which time the judgment on the unpaid wages claim may be available.Solicitors: Simpson Grierson, Auckland, for Appellant Oakley Moran, Wellington, for Respondent