AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA700/2015
[2016] NZCA 121

BETWEEN

AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC
First Respondent

ROBERTA KEREWAI RATU AND OTHERS
Second Respondents

Hearing:	14 March 2016 (further submissions received 17 March 2016)
Court:	Harrison, Wild and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	P F Wicks QC and G P Malone for Applicant P Cranney and S R Mitchell for Respondents
Judgment:	13 April 2016 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Employment Court in New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd is granted.[1]
[1]New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 204.

B The questions of law for determination by this Court are:[2]

[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.

1.Did the Employment Court err in finding the second respondents were engaged by AFFCO New Zealand Ltd on employment agreements of indefinite duration with the result that employment was not terminated when they were laid off at the end of the season?
2.Did the Employment Court err in holding that s 82(1)(a)(iv) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applied even if there was no employment relationship between AFFCO New Zealand Ltd and the second respondents in the off season?
3. Did the Employment Court err in holding that AFFCO New Zealand Ltd’s new form of individual employment agreement did not comply with s 61(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000?

CThere will be no order for costs on the application for leave given that the respondents’ opposition was reasonable.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

We are satisfied that the three questions set out above meet the requirement of s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 which stipulates that leave may only be granted for an appeal from the Employment Court if the question of law involved is one that by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.
The appellant also sought leave in respect of a fourth question, which would ask whether the Employment Court acted in breach of natural justice by reaching a conclusion that AFFCO New Zealand Ltd had breached an obligation to act in good faith without sufficient evidence and without AFFCO New Zealand Ltd being afforded the opportunity to be heard. We are satisfied that that question could not be characterised as one that by reason of its general or public importance, or for any other reason should be submitted to this Court for decision.
There will be no order for costs on the application for leave given that the respondents’ opposition was reasonable.

Solicitors:
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to consider an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court in a dispute between AFFCO New Zealand Limited and the New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc. The applicants, AFFCO New Zealand Limited, sought leave to appeal against the Employment Court's judgment on the basis that it had erred in its determination of the employment status of certain workers, the application of a specific section of the Employment Relations Act 2000, and the compliance of AFFCO's new form of individual employment agreement with statutory requirements. The appeal was heard by Harrison, Wild, and Cooper JJ, who granted the application for leave to appeal, focusing on three specified questions of law.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on the interpretation and application of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The first issue was whether the Employment Court was correct in determining that the second respondents were engaged by AFFCO New Zealand Ltd on employment agreements of indefinite duration, leading to the conclusion that their employment was not terminated when they were laid off at the end of the season. The second issue pertained to the applicability of section 82(1)(a)(iv) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, specifically whether it could be invoked even in the absence of an employment relationship between AFFCO New Zealand Ltd and the second respondents during the off-season. The third issue was whether the Employment Court correctly held that AFFCO New Zealand Ltd's new form of individual employment agreement did not comply with section 61(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Court of Appeal found that these questions were of sufficient general or public importance to warrant its consideration.

The Court of Appeal, in granting leave to appeal, found that the three questions raised by the appellant met the criteria set out in section 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This section specifies that leave to appeal may only be granted if the question of law involved is one that, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. The Court also considered a fourth question proposed by the appellant, which was rejected as it did not meet the criteria for appeal under the Act. The Court made no order for costs on the application for leave to appeal, considering that the opposition by the respondents was reasonable.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established