New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of employee

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2017

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 135

Citation

[2017] NZSC 135
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the seasonal workers were not employees under the narrowly read s6 definition at the relevant time but that the term "employees" in s82(1)(b) bears a broader contextual meaning and covers seasonal workers who were owed contractual re-engagement obligations and continuing terms; AFFCO's conduct in requiring new less-favourable individual agreements before re-engagement constituted an unlawful lockout; appeal dismissed.
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.
25 Jun 1999

Geraghty v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1999] NZACC 161
Court

District Court

Because the ARCI Act's definition of "employee" depends on the Income Tax Act's concept of source deduction payments (income subject to New Zealand tax), the appellant's intended employment in Australia would not be liable for New Zealand tax and therefore he could not be deemed an employee under s44(1)(c); consequently he is not entitled to weekly compensation.
29 Nov 1996

Vasquez v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Citation

[1996] NZACC 146
Court

District Court

The appellant was on unpaid maternity leave and therefore was not an 'employee' engaged in 'employment' nor an 'earner' immediately before the commencement of incapacity as required by s40 of the 1992 Act; 'immediately' must be strictly construed, so s40 weekly compensation does not apply, and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2017] NZSC 135

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

Geraghty v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

Vasquez v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation