| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 84 |
| Determination date | 25 July 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Richards ; R Brown |
| Parties | Healthcare of New Zealand Ltd v Capital & Coast District Health Board and Ors |
| Other Parties | Access Homehealth Ltd, Presbyterian Support Central, Public Service Association and Beryl Barr |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether Authority had jurisdiction to hear with second and third respondents’ claim – Second and third respondents claimed dispute action arising from or related to employment relationship – Second and third respondents claimed dispute related to interpretation of Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Authority found no relationship between applicant and second and third respondents other than as significantly resourced corporate litigants seeking forum in which to deal with dispute that had employment connotations when it began – Found dispute between parties not cause of action essential character of which was to be found entirely within employment relationship itself – Found if Authority relied on ‘but for’ test, employment relationship between applicant and employees not at heart of dispute – Found relationship between applicant and second and third respondents not employment relationship within meaning of s4 ERA – Found dispute not action arising from or related to employment relationship – Found s69J ERA plain and required no interpretation – Found dispute not related to interpretation of ERA – No jurisdiction |
| Abstract | Applicant contracted to provide services to first respondent. Following tender process, first respondent awarded new contract to second and third respondents. Employment of applicant’s employees transferred to second and third respondents under Part 6A Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”). Second and third respondents claimed applicant withheld money paid to applicant by first respondent for purpose of paying employees’ leave entitlements. Second and third respondents claimed dispute action arising from or related to employment relationship. Second and third respondents claimed no commercial arrangement between parties and dispute would not have arisen but for employment relationship problem. Applicant claimed matter purely commercial, not related to or arising out of employment relationship and therefore not employment relationship problem. Second and third respondents claimed dispute related to interpretation of ERA. Second and third respondents claimed s69J ERA did not address who was responsible for accrued entitlements of employees transferring to employment of second and third respondents under Part 6A ERA.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;JURISDICTION: Dispute between parties had genesis in employment relationship but now commercial dispute between significant corporate entities about appropriate treatment of funding for employees’ leave entitlements. Employment relationship even more remote as transfer of employees from applicant to second and third respondents pursuant to Part 6A ERA rather than pursuant to employment agreement. Dispute between parties not cause of action essential character of which was to be found entirely within employment relationship itself. If Authority relied on ‘but for’ test, employment relationship between applicant and employees not at heart of dispute. Employment relationship problem can only be problem relating to employment relationship as defined in s4 ERA. Relationship between applicant and second and third respondents not employment relationship within meaning of s4 ERA. Dispute not action arising from or related to employment relationship. Provisions in s69J ERA plain and required no interpretation. Second and third respondents instead asking Authority to write new provision into ERA. Dispute not related to interpretation of ERA. No jurisdiction. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4(2);ERA s5;ERA Part 6A;ERA s69J;ERA s69J(2)(a)(i);ERA s69J(2)(a)(ii);ERA s69J(2)(a)(iii);ERA s161;ERA s161(1);ERA s161(1)(r) |
| Cases Cited | B D M Grange Ltd v Parker [2005] ERNZ 343; [2006] 1 NZLR 353;Pain Management Systems (NZ) Ltd v McCallum unreported, Panckhurst J, 14 August 2001, CP72/01;Waikato Rugby Union (Inc) v New Zealand Rugby Football Union (Inc) [2002] 1 ERNZ 752 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_84.pdf [pdf 189 KB] |