New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lockout

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2018

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2018] NZCA 562

Citation

[2018] NZCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal

Seasonal workers who are owed continuing contractual entitlements to re-engagement and associated payments form a special category of worker; wages that would have been payable but for an unlawful lockout fall within the WPA definition of wages and AFFCO's refusal to pay those wages constituted an unlawful deduction contrary to the WPA, so the WPA protects such entitlements.
13 Oct 2017

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED [2017] NZCA 453

Citation

[2017] NZCA 453
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted only on the discrete legal question whether entitlements arising from the unlawful lockout were wages under the Wages Protection Act 1983 because that question is one of law and of general/public importance; other grounds were refused because if the claim is for WPA wages (as pleaded) mitigation and related issues do not arise and the proposed points were not seriously arguable.
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.
22 Dec 2008

SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LTD V SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC CA CA133/2008

Citation

openlaw-4dbf2e5a_2fc7_4e4f_8b9c_a15e0513f722.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Employment Court erred in treating the lawfulness of the employer's demand as a jurisdictional gate to the definition of a lockout under s82 ERA; s82 defines the factual and mental elements of a lockout but lawfulness is assessed by reference to ss83 and 84. Consequently the question whether Spotless' lockout was justified under s84 (health and safety) or invalidated by subsequent notices must be determined by the Employment Court; the appeals are allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing on those issues.
19 Mar 2008

NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION INC V AIR NELSON LIMITED CA CA657/07

Citation

openlaw-075f20e2_0059_4dba_939e_437fd0638852.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the question whether the Employment Court's construction of s97(4) was erroneous in law raises substantive issues of statutory interpretation closely related to those in Finau, and judicial efficiency requires the appeals be heard together.
17 Mar 2008

SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LTD V SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC AND S D ABURN & ORS CA 704/07

Citation

openlaw-f4e85c56_6fe3_40f6_913a_3584627b15ff.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal because the three contested legal conclusions of the Employment Court—lawfulness under s82, invalidation by post-lockout notices, and the counterfactual basis for calculating financial relief—raised arguable errors of law suitable for appellate determination.
19 Nov 2007

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

Citation

openlaw-0eab9c5c_533f_4c7d_a80b_98ae0421de46.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal was adjourned because it was premature: the Employment Court's finding that the demand was unlawful could be dispositive, other challenges (including s84 justification) remained undecided, and the unresolved unpaid wages judgment could materially affect the leave decision.