New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Incorporated v Mana Coach Services Ltd

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA667/2008
[2008] NZCA 529

BETWEENNEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION INCORPORATED

Appellant

ANDMANA COACH SERVICES LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:2 December 2008

Court:Chambers, Ellen France and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:S R Mitchell for Appellant

H Fulton and K M Ashcroft for Respondent

Judgment:4 December 2008 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law:
(a)     Was the Employment Court right in holding that Mana Coach Services Limited (the respondent) did not have to pay wages to those drivers who had given notice of an intention to strike on 1 August 2007 but then did not in fact strike?
(b)     Did the respondent act lawfully in terms of s 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in its engagement of replacement drivers while its normal drivers were on strike?

B        Costs are reserved.
NOTE
[1]       This court has granted leave to appeal with respect to the correct interpretation of s 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in Finau v Southward Engineering Co Ltd [2007] NZCA 575 and New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Air Nelson Ltd [2008] NZCA 69. Those appeals, if pursued, are to be heard together.
[2]       Counsel in the present case may care to consider whether this appeal too should be heard with the others. If they think that advantageous, they can make the appropriate application.
Solicitors:
Simon N Meikle, Wellington for Appellant
Kiely Thompson Caisley, Wellington, for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal in the case of New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Incorporated against Mana Coach Services Limited. The dispute centred on whether the employer was obligated to pay wages to drivers who had notified their intention to strike but did not proceed with the strike, and whether the employer lawfully engaged replacement drivers during the strike. The appeal sought clarification on the interpretation of section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which allows for the engagement of replacement workers during industrial action.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the employer was required to pay wages to drivers who gave notice of a strike but did not actually strike, and whether the employer's engagement of replacement drivers complied with the statutory provisions during the strike. The union argued that the employer should have paid the wages despite the drivers not striking, while the employer contended that it was not obligated to do so and that the engagement of replacement drivers was lawful under the act.

The Court of Appeal addressed the legal questions by examining the statutory language and relevant case law. The court concluded that the employer was not required to pay wages to drivers who gave notice of a strike but did not carry it out. It also found that the employer's engagement of replacement drivers during the strike was lawful under section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, provided that the drivers were not required to work and the engagement of replacements was in accordance with the act. The court's interpretation of the relevant legislation aligned with previous decisions in similar cases.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the specified questions of law but reserved costs for a later determination. The judgment provided clarity on the obligations of employers and the rights of employees during strike action, reinforcing the legal framework governing industrial disputes in New Zealand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established