Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 216 VMR v Aviation Security Service (AvSec) division of Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...admissibility of an affidavit tendered by the plaintiffs for the purpose of a challenge concerning interim reinstatement. [2] The affidavit was taken from a general practitioner (GP), Dr Sophie Febery, and concerns a variety of issues about COVID-related vaccines. I will explain the scope of her evidence more fully shortly. [3] The plaintiffs applied for interim reinstatement to their former positions after being dismissed because they chose not to be vaccinated. Their applicatio...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 205 WXN v Auckland International Airport Ltd [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...Judgment: 23 November 2021 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Background [1] WXN was a longstanding and respected employee of Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL). His employment was terminated after he chose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19. This judgment considers whether he should be reinstated until the claim he has brought can be heard in the Employment Relations Authority. [2] A vaccine obligation was introduced in relation to specified border p...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...plaintiff J C Sanders and P Goredema, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 2 December 2024 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN [1] At the end of 2021, Synlait Milk Ltd instituted a COVID-19 health check plan. This plan included a vaccination policy covering all staff onsite. [2] Nicola Preece disagreed with that policy and did not get vaccinated, so her employment was terminated by Synlait. [3] Ms Preece has three personal grievance claims: (a) She says she suf...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 5 VMR v Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 519 KB]

   ...the difficulties which have arisen for the plaintiffs are not due to any fault on their behalf. They have worked for CAA for between four and nearly 20 years. They were well regarded by their colleagues and management. They made a choice about vaccination as they were entitled to do, relying on well-established protections that, if applicable, would have allowed each of them to exercise their right to decline medical treatment without any consequences. Key facts Background [...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...164 (Member Fuiava). 2 At [19]–[56]. [4] On 30 April 2021, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (the Order) came into effect. The Order required certain people who worked at the defendant’s port to be vaccinated against COVID-19. [5] Effective from 14 July 2021, the Order was amended so that it applied to workers who handled affected items within 72 hours of the removal of those items from affected ships and who had contact with members o...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 39 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] Five employees say they were discriminated against by their respective employers, because they were required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 under an enactment requiring mandatory vaccinations of certain workers. [2] They raised employment relationship problems in the Employment Relations Authority, which determined that they were in essence challenging the legality of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations)...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 123 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service NZ Ltd [pdf, 376 KB]

   ...only people in their bubble are other family members: her parents, her brother, and his wife. [3] During November 2021, RDNS concluded CSN fell within the definition of “care and support worker” under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (the Vaccinations Order).1 It took the position it was unable to continue employing CSN if she was not vaccinated. [4] Since CSN chose not to be vaccinated for COVID-19, RDNS terminated her employment with effect f...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 157 Hall v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...Authority to determine the plaintiff’s personal grievance claims, or whether they should remain with the Court to be determined there. [6] The plaintiff’s claims arise against the backdrop of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (Vaccinations Order). [7] Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) determined that Ms Hall was covered by the order because she is a firefighter. [8] Ms Hall did not obtain a COVID-19 vaccination. [9] As an unvaccin...

9. Medicines Amendment Bill [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...below. The Bill 4. The Bill amends the Medicines Act 1981 (the principal Act). 5. It inserts a new section 24H into the principal Act to enable the Director-General of Health to authorise by notice the administration of a consented COVID-19 vaccine, without a prescription, otherwise than in accordance with the approved data sheet for that vaccine. The notice may specify matters in relation to the administration of the vaccine including: a. who it may be administered to; b. the...

10. [2023] NZEmpC 64 Whangamata Golf Club Inc v Harwood [pdf, 261 KB]

    ...club) has brought a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority.1 [2] The Authority determined that on 31 December 2021, Mr Benjamin Harwood had been unjustifiably dismissed by the club for his failure to comply with its vaccination policy. It found the dismissal was procedurally unjustified in light of 1 Harwood v Whangamata Golf Club Inc [2022] NZERA 693 (Member Urlich). sch 3A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). Schedule 3A was a h...