Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 116 Miller v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...following inspection of the exchanged lists the defendant served a form 6 notice under the Employment Court Regulations 2000 relating to five classes of documents concerning the Serious Fraud Office prosecutions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in response served a form 7 objection. Counsel were agreed on a timetable in which the defendant would file and serve an application for further and better disclosure accompanied by an affidavit and the plaintiff would file and ser...

2. [2009] NZEmpC WC 28/09 Secretary for Justice v Dodd [pdf, 29 KB]

   ...reinstatement are the following features of the case: • As courts’ manager for Taranaki (and sheriff), the defendant operates largely unsupervised on a day to day basis. • The plaintiff must have trust and confidence in a senior officer responsible for the operations of a number of courts. • Payment of the defendant’s remuneration will alleviate the financial hardships of her dismissal, especially as the Authority declined to grant any other remedies including reimburs...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 56 EBIIWU & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...affected. The case is nevertheless one that tests the new law so that the judgment is useful, not only to the immediate parties in the resolution of their dispute but to others. In this sense the parties take on, albeit involuntarily, a burden of responsibility for others in employment relations to blaze a trail that others can not only follow but, knowing of its path, can order their affairs to avoid or minimise the need for future litigation. That is what has happened here and...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 48 DAS Transport Ltd v Kirkwood [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...October 2009. The Authority’s determination confirms that a copy of these directions and a record of the conference, together with a notice of the investigation meeting, was sent to the company’s address for service but again there was no response. [4] Very shortly before the scheduled investigation meeting new counsel representing the company, Mr Gwilliam, contacted the Authority on 10 or 11 November 2009 saying that although he had been instructed about a month previously,...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 13 Maritime Union of NZ v C3 Ltd [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...Background [12] The background to this challenge, as Mr Mitchell submitted, was in the nature of a dispute as to whether a collective agreement was applicable to employees of the defendant. Mr Mitchell submitted that the defendant must take responsibility for the confusion that had arisen as to the actual employer at the wharf at Tauranga because of the following: the branding of the operation was in the name of the defendant; the payslips referred to the defendant and the defen...

6. [2009] NZEmpC AC 24/09 Turners and Growers Ltd v Marshall [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...general manager of human resources. Ms Tansley deposes that Mr Marshall has denied having confidential information but describes him, from her experience of dealings with him, as “cagey, inconsistent, antagonistic and does not give accurate responses to questions asked.” Ms Tansley reports comments by Mr Marshall to her that “he could do what ever (sic) he liked now that he had left.” Among other allegations and evidence, that is the only evidence to which the plaintiff p...

7. [2006] NZEmpC AC 37/06 Schneller v Ranworth Healthcare Ltd [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...made allowing Mr Drake to cross-examine only related to areas of identified inconsistency. Karen Schneller remained a witness called for Ranworth who was its general manager and principal managerial representative at the relevant times. It bears responsibility for what she did as its general manager at relevant times. [20] I simply note here for future reference, and with the benefit of hindsight, that this may have been a case better dealt with by an application before trial (sup...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 15/07 Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...plaintiff, the underestimate of the length of the fixture and the plaintiff’s pursuance of her legal aid application. There may also have been some outstanding issues of disclosure. [7] Again whilst it may be possible to ascribe to the plaintiff the responsibility for the delays although she in turn complains about aspects of non-disclosure of documents, it is difficult to see how this material could be called upon to support the application for security. It is also extremely d...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 203 Tinkler v Fugro PMS PTY Ltd & Pavement Management Services Ltd [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...It is apparent that Fugro’s counsel was required to consider the statement of claim and prepare a statement of defence, 6 peruse the affidavit and brief of evidence filed on behalf of Mr Tinkler and to prepare and file a brief of evidence in response (from Mr Yeaman). Mr Yeaman’s brief of evidence was 22 paragraphs long. Submissions were required and counsel 4 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA) a...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 7 Air New Zealand Ltd v Wulff [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...collective agreements. At the time of his dismissal on 7 November 2008, the applicable agreement did not quantify the amount of paid sick leave to which employees were entitled. Rather, the entitlement was open ended with employees relied on to use it responsibly. [9] During the time between Mr Wulff’s dismissal and his reinstatement on 4 December 2009, a revised collective agreement came into effect which quantified employees’ entitlement to paid sick leave. It also containe...