New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited v Weller
[2014] NZCA 438
•5 September 2014 at 10 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA313/2014 [2014] NZCA 438 |
| BETWEEN | NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LIMITED |
| AND | ANDREW WELLER & OTHERS |
| Hearing: | 25 August 2014 |
Court: | O’Regan P, Ellen France and Miller JJ |
Counsel: | P R Jagose and R M Dixon for Applicant |
Judgment: | 5 September 2014 at 10 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for leave to appeal is granted with respect to the following question:
Did the Employment Court err in law in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981?
BThe application is otherwise dismissed.
CNo order for costs.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Judge Couch in the Employment Court[1] in which the Judge dismissed a challenge by the applicant to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority.[2] The case concerns a dispute about how holidays in lieu of statutory holidays are to be accrued and accounted for, in light of the respondents’ work pattern changing from eight-hour to 12-hour shifts.
[1]New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd v Weller [2014] NZEmpC 74. There are 64 respondents to this application, set out in a schedule to the Employment Court’s decision.
[2]Weller v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd [2013] NZERA Christchurch 75.
Leave to appeal may be granted only if, in this Court’s opinion, a question of law involved in the proposed appeal, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court.[3] The Employment Relations Act 2000 also provides that the Court has no power to consider decisions on the construction of an employment agreement.[4]
[3]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).
[4]Section 214(1).
We are satisfied that the test for leave to appeal in s 214 of the Employment Relations Act is met in relation to the question: Did the Employment Court err in law in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981?
The applicant also sought to raise two other proposed questions. The first of these challenges the Employment Court’s approach to contractual interpretation. The Judge applied orthodox principles as set out by the Supreme Court in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd.[5] The proposed appeal on this aspect does not raise any “questions of principle going beyond the particular terms of the contract”.[6]
[5]Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5, [2010] 2 NZLR 444.
[6]Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc [2009] NZCA 394 at [10]; and see Secretary for Education v Yates [2004] 2 ERNZ 313 (CA).
The other question the applicant wishes to raise is one it says was raised in the Employment Court but not dealt with. If the Judge did not deal with the issue, the proper course is for the application to go back to the Employment Court.
As each party has had some measure of success we make no order for costs.
The application for leave is granted in part as set out in order A but is otherwise declined.
Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Applicant
New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc, Wellington for Respondents
1
0