Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rail & Maritime Transport Union Inc & Ors

Phillipa Muir and Nikki Dines successfully represented Toll in this case, which was a key case involving issues of good faith, the status of multi-employer collective employment agreements (MECAs), and technical redundancy.

The Employment Court confirmed that MECAs did not have any special status accorded to them in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA).  The Court held that it was not a condition of employment of the current MECA that the MECA must remain in force, nor was being employed on a MECA by another employer a condition of employment.  Accordingly, the technical redundancy test under the current MECA had not been breached by Toll.

The Court also held that Toll was entitled to maintain its position that it did not want another employer to join its MECA.  The Court confirmed that unless there is evidence of bad faith, there is not an absence of good faith in a party adhering to a genuinely held belief as to the correctness of its position, when the matter is clearly arguable one way or the other.

Association of University Staff Inc v Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland

Phillipa Muir and Nikki Dines acted for the University of Auckland in this case before the full Employment Court.  The case dealt with good faith obligations in the context of collective bargaining, including whether the University of Auckland had to attend multi-employer collective negotiations with other New Zealand Universities. 

The University was successful in defending the union's claim that it acted in breach of its obligations of good faith and that it undermined the union and/or the collective bargaining. 

Three Foot Six v Bryson

Phillipa Muir acted for Three Foot Six (the company which produced the Lord of the Rings Trilogy) in this case, which was the first employment law case to be appealed to New Zealand's new Supreme Court.  The case dealt with the controversial issue of whether Mr Bryson was engaged as an employee or an independent contractor.

Auckland City Council v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc

Phillipa Muir successfully represented Auckland City Council in this appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to an Employment Court decision which would have required employers to consult with unions about all business proposals, even when union members might not be affected by the proposal.  The Court of Appeal set aside the Employment Court's decision in this respect.

Wackrow v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

Phillipa Muir and Rochelle Price successfully represented Fonterra in the Employment Court in this case dealing with the problematic area where an employer is investigating misconduct which is also a criminal offence.  The case concerned the conflicting rights of the employer -  to conduct a disciplinary investigation and take disciplinary action, and the employee’s right to silence and a fair criminal trial.

The Court confirmed that Fonterra was entitled to require Mr Wackrow to attend a disciplinary meeting and refused Mr Wackrow's application for an injunction preventing Fonterra from dismissing or suspending him until the criminal proceedings against him were determined.

Phillips & Ors v Telecom (NZ) Ltd

Shan Wilson acted for Telecom in this case, where employees of Telecom claimed their redundancies were not genuine.  A division of the business had been closed down.

The employees claimed that their redundancies had not been implemented for valid business reasons, but had been motivated by personal and performance issues.  The employees also claimed that their redundancies had been predetermined and that the procedure used to implement the redundancies was unfair.

The Court found in Telecom's favour, namely, that there was a true redundancy situation, and the dismissals were based on genuine commercial reasons.  The Court also found that Telecom had met its obligations to consult.

Thomas v SKYCITY Management Ltd

Shan Wilson successfully acted for SKYCITY defending a claim by Mr Thomas that SKYCITY acted in breach of its obligations of good faith in calling him to a disciplinary meeting, despite the fact that SKYCITY, after listening to Mr Thomas, decided not to take any disciplinary action against him.  Mr Thomas also raised a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage.

The Employment Relations Authority found that SKYCITY had followed a fair and reasonable process and dismissed Mr Thomas' claims.

Dr Graham Paul v Hutt Valley District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board

Samantha Turner successfully represented the Capital and Coast and Hutt Valley District Health Boards in the Employment Court and in the Court of Appeal. 

The case in the Employment Court lasted for eight days and involved numerous claims (including breach of contract, breach of trust and confidence and discrimination) against the health boards by a dissatisfied trainee surgeon, Dr Paul. 

The Employment Court dismissed all of Dr Paul's claims against each of the health boards.

Dr Paul then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal this decision.  However, following a hearing on this application, the Court of Appeal dismissed his application and refused him leave to appeal.

Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan

Samantha Turner successfully represented Telecom in the Employment Court in the first case to the Court in relation to the exceptional circumstances provisions of the ERA.

The employee sought leave to raise a personal grievance outside of the 90 day period on the grounds that the delay in raising his grievance was occasioned by exceptional circumstances.

The Employment Court however found in Telecom's favour, namely that no exceptional circumstances existed to grant leave to raise the grievance out of time.  In the first case to be decided under the relevant sections of the ERA, the Court held Parliament did not intend on relaxing the tests for extending the limitation period in the ERA and confirmed that there is a very high threshold for employees to show that "exceptional circumstances" exist.

Walker v Telecom New Zealand Ltd

John Rooney, assisted by Rochelle Price, successfully acted for Telecom in a case before the Employment Relations Authority concerning an employee who claimed she was unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment as a result of failing to be promoted. 

The Authority confirmed that Telecom had acted fairly and reasonably in considering Ms Walker's applications for a promotion and that it was for Telecom to assess whether or not Ms Walker was the person best suited for the positions she applied for.

Pilcher v Fonterra New Zealand Ltd

John Rooney, assisted by Rochelle Price, successfully defended Fonterra in this highly topical case involving performance issues and bullying.  Ms Pilcher was dismissed for poor performance and challenged the dismissal on the grounds that Fonterra did not follow a fair process and that she was bullied by her manager. 

The Employment Relations Authority upheld Ms Pilcher's dismissal and found that Fonterra acted in a fair and reasonable manner and that its concerns about the employee's performance were genuine and serious.

Walen v SKYCITY Management Ltd

Shan Wilson and Katherine Burson successfully defended Mr Walen's claim that he was unjustifiably dismissed.  Mr Walen (a security staff member) had been dismissed following a conversation he had with a patron, in which he advised the patron to take the problem he had with another casino patron into his own hands, and to act violently and inappropriately.  The Employment Relations Authority found SKYCITY's decision that it could no longer have trust and confidence in Mr Walen was justified. 

Land Transport New Zealand v Lana MacKay

Samantha Turner successfully represented Land Transport New Zealand in the Employment Court against an employee who claimed to have been unjustifiably dismissed.  Ms MacKay was dismissed, following a previous final written warning for attempting to coerce another staff member into misleading management about a further instance of misconduct.

The Employment Court found in Land Transport New Zealand's favour, namely that they had conducted a full and fair inquiry which disclosed conduct capable of being regarded as serious misconduct and therefore the decision to dismiss Ms MacKay was justified.

Angela Ireland v The Child Cancer Foundation

Carl Blake successfully defended Ms Ireland's application for interim reinstatement.  Ms Ireland was summarily dismissed by the Child Cancer Foundation for breaching the Foundation's code of conduct.  The Foundation was concerned that disparaging comments Ms Ireland made about a former Board member to a prospective client may bring it into disrepute.  The Employment Relations Authority considered that, on the balance of convenience, reinstatement should not be ordered given the potential for damage to the Foundation's reputation.