New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collective agreement interpretation

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2017

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZSC 111

Citation

(2017) 14 NZELR 402
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that appellate review under s214 is not absolutely barred for construction questions: the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court may intervene where the Employment Court has misstated or misapplied orthodox principles of contractual interpretation; applying that test the Employment Court had erred (by relying on subjective negotiation evidence and adopting a 'benefits only' construction of clause 24.2), the Court of Appeal therefore had jurisdiction and the NZALPA interpretation failed, so NZALPA was not entitled to the selective passing on it sought; appeal to the Su…
14 Jun 2017

WAIKATO DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v NEW ZEALAND NURSES ORGANISATION [2017] NZCA 247

Citation

[2017] NZCA 247
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Chief Judge Colgan did not err in ordering a rehearing; the Employment Court's power to rehear is broad, the standard for rehearing encompasses a substantial possibility or real risk of miscarriage of justice, the Nurses Organisation's s179 challenge raised a distinct and broadly significant question which Judge Ford failed to decide, and the Employment Court also has a power of recall in appropriate cases.
6 Oct 2016

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED AND ORS [2016] NZCA 482

Citation

[2016] ERNZ 225
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Employment Court was wrong to find seasonal meatworkers were employed on indefinite continuous contracts through the off‑season; however, because the collective agreement and statutory context created enduring contractual rights to an offer of re‑employment, the employer's refusal or failure to engage those seasonal workers unless they accepted new terms amounted to an unlawful lockout within s82 even if no active employment relationship existed during the off‑season; appeal dismissed.
27 Nov 2014

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED CA570/2014 [2014] NZCA 570

Citation

[2014] NZCA 570
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the case raised a real question of law concerning the construction of cl 24.2 and whether it imposed a discrete pass-on obligation to provide remuneration provisions to NZALPA members, warranting appellate determination.
5 Aug 2014

NZ MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC V ALLIANCE GROUP LTD CA232/2014 [2014] NZCA 367

Citation

[2014] NZCA 367
Court

Court of Appeal

The Employment Court correctly applied orthodox principles of contractual interpretation, including extrinsic bargaining evidence, and inevitably concluded the parties did not intend to preserve an additional week of annual holiday for long‑serving employees after the statutory increase to four weeks; accordingly there was no error of law and leave is refused.
8 May 2014

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD v AVIATION AND MARINE ENGINEERS ASSN INC & ANOR CA693/2013 [2014] NZCA 172

Citation

[2014] NZCA 172
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because replacement collective agreements rendered the questions moot and the proposed appeal was unlikely to meet the s 214(3) threshold of general or public importance; the Court therefore declined to grant leave and did not revisit the Employment Court's substantive findings.
21 Feb 2012

SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA V CEREBOS GREGG'S LIMITED COA CA562/2011

Citation

COA CA562/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held cl 17.4 of the collective agreement conferred a contractual additional week of annual leave as a reward for long service and was intended to remain additional to the statutory minimum after 1 April 2007; the Employment Court erred by focusing on statutory purpose and by misapplying precedent (Tramways) instead of the line of authorities (Silver Fern Farms, NDU, Robinson), and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to correct that error.
4 Oct 2005

WAITEMATA DHB V NZ PSA CA CA118/05

Citation

openlaw-f3df1f19_b0ba_4357_a522_2d8368ee16dd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the two framed questions are questions of law of sufficient significance: whether liability under the collective agreement can arise without a specific employer direction, and whether liability can exist absent therapeutic or patient-care requirements; these involve legal issues akin to jurisdictional questions and are not merely disputed factual conclusions.