New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collective agreements

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2017

CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INC v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 477

Citation

[2017] NZCA 477
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal is granted limited to the discrete legal question whether removal of a work category from the collective agreement amounted to a variation requiring further agreement; other proposed questions concerning contractual construction are barred by s 214(1) because the Employment Court applied orthodox contractual interpretation and therefore its interpretation cannot be recontested on a second appeal.
12 Oct 2016

LEAN MEATS OAMARU LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2016] NZCA 495

Citation

[2016] NZCA 495
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 69ZD of the Employment Relations Act 2000 requires rest breaks to be 'paid' at the same rate for which the employee would be paid to work at that time; 'paid' in context means paid at the existing work rate so employees are not penalised for taking statutory breaks and the statutory purpose is given effect.
11 Sept 2015

NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION INC v MANA COACH SERVICES LIMITED [2015] NZCA 433

Citation

[2015] NZCA 433
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal dismissed because there is no arguable question of law: the earlier bad faith finding was binding for the rehearing; the Employment Court resolved the issue on factual causation that work was unavailable due to the Union's bad faith so wages were not earned; the point is also largely moot following statutory amendment and finality is required.
1 Jul 2013

THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION V NEW ZEALAND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE TE RIU ROA INC CA522/2012 [2013] NZCA 272

Citation

(2013) 10 NZELR 781
Court

Court of Appeal

The ERA confers jurisdiction to hear disputes that relate to or arise out of employment relationships; the Secretary was a named party to and bound by the collective agreement and clause 3 imposed continuing duties on the Secretary during the agreement term; s 74A SSA does not displace the ERA jurisdiction or require boards to be named such that the Secretary cannot be sued, and requiring nominal boards would produce an absurd, ineffective result, therefore the Secretary is properly named as sole respondent.
30 Nov 2011

OCS LIMITED V SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC COA CA865/2010

Citation

COA CA865/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 69N(1)(c) must be read to exclude from the statutory bargaining gateway any situation where the employment agreement (including a collective agreement) has already addressed redundancy entitlements; an express contractual exclusion of monetary redundancy compensation or other provisions dealing with redeployment/notice means s 69N does not apply.
21 Nov 2011

NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION INCORPORATED V MANA COACH SERVICES LIMITED COA CA40/2009

Citation

openlaw-cb236d21_cec2_4c16_bb4b_78c2e4f7295e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Employment Court erred in relying on its equity and good conscience jurisdiction to deny employees wages otherwise payable under statutory and contractual rights; wage entitlements under the Wages Protection Act and ERA cannot be displaced by an exercise of the equity jurisdiction. The portion of the Employment Court decision holding Mana did not have to pay those drivers is set aside and the matter is remitted to determine whether the bad faith found can disentitle employees by some mechanism other than the equity and good conscience jurisdiction.
21 Jul 2010

SILVER FERN FARMS LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADE UNIONS INCORPORATED CA CA593/2009

Citation

openlaw-996f135f_a2b4_4da0_9f34_5fc192a1451c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Employment Court applied orthodox principles of contractual interpretation, including consideration of statutory context and prior instruments; clause 10.2 could not operate to reduce statutory minimums after 1 April 2007 (Holidays Act 2003 s6(3)), and on proper construction, supported by industry history, clause 10.4 continues to confer one additional week of annual holiday for qualifying employees above the statutory minimum; there was no error of principle warranting appellate intervention, so the appeal is dismissed.
2 Jun 2010

PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED V MARITIME UNION OF NEW ZEALAND CA CA231/2010

Citation

openlaw-461d380e_9a73_4f5a_823a_41ee38237a43.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The union (MUNZ) had standing under s137(4) to seek enforcement orders alleging inconsistency under s61; the correct test for inconsistency is an objective comparison of the terms of the additional agreement with the terms and conditions of like employment in the collective agreement, and on that comparison the fixed term AA agreements were inconsistent with the collective agreement; the appeal is dismissed.
21 Dec 2007

NZ AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING, PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION INC V WITNEY INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY EPIC PACKAGING LIMITED) CA CA282/06

Citation

openlaw-5d531f6c_4899_4337_84a7_1673747baf29.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that Part 5 statutory collective bargaining (including initiation by s 42 notice) can be used to seek an agreement by an employer to become a subsequent party to an existing collective agreement under s 56A; an agreement to join can itself constitute a collective agreement; nothing in s 56A or the ERA’s scheme excludes use of the statutory bargaining process for joinder; employer freedom of association and the object of individual choice do not justify a narrower reading of Part 5 in this context.
13 Mar 2006

NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION V NEW ZEALAND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' UNION INC CA CA270/05

Citation

openlaw-2d7af3d1_9707_4dad_b64c_93a4667b3cb8.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because Business New Zealand had direct involvement in the development of the Holidays Act 2003 and can assist the Court on the statutory interpretation of s 57, an issue likely to affect parties beyond those before the Court; conditions were imposed to prevent duplication of submissions and a timetable was set.