Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC CC 3/09 A Farmer v A Worker [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...not only as an employer but also as a father. In his submissions, Mr Slevin urged me to separate those roles in my analysis but, in my view, it is impracticable and unrealistic to do so. The farmer could not do so in fact and, having regard to human nature, could not be reasonably expected to do so. That is because the allegations made by the boy were not only of serious criminal offending but also inevitably had a powerful emotional impact on the farmer. This is a factor likely t...

2. [2006] NZEmpC WC 12/06 AFFCO NZ Ltd v NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...1 Horn (Labour Inspector) v Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd unreported, Shaw J, 7 May 2002, AC 25/02 4 would never get their indicative rates. Union officials raised this issue with him in March 2004. [17] Mr Cox, human resources manager for AFFCO, said that there was a very long established custom and practice for lamb cutters to be paid by the piece rate system which was always an all inclusive rate and quite separate from other distinct operations at I

3. [2013] NZEmpC 89 NZ Dairy Workers Union Inc v Fonterra Brands (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...to such an outcome being imposed. This, it submitted, would abrogate the rights of the workers under the clause. [12] Two witnesses gave evidence for Fonterra. The first was Helen Blair who was, at the time of the negotiations for the cea, Human Resources Manager Operations. The second was Brian How who was, at the time of the negotiations, Strategic Projects Manager. Both represented the company in the negotiations. They each gave evidence of their specific understanding of...

4. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...manager and says he only ever acted on behalf of the company. [22] There is no doubt that Wakefield was the developer. However, it is necessary to make a finding as to whether Mr MacKinnon was a co-developer and whether his actions as the ‘human face’ of Wakefield were the actions of a developer per se. This is important as a developer has a non delegable duty of care.2 A director who is not a developer may still be liable but their negligence must arise from their act...

5. IPT Annual Report 2014 [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...Protection Tribunal was established under section 217 of the Immigration Act 2009. This annual report records case load and decision statistics in each of the Tribunal's four jurisdictional streams - residence, deportation (resident), deportation (humanitarian) (formerly referred to as removals) and refugee and protection. It also records the statistics for the Tribunal as a whole. The Immigration Act 2009 imposes no reporting requirements on the Immigration and Protection Tribuna...

6. [2016] NZSSAA 100 (24 November 2016) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...records the objects of the charity as being: “to relieve those persons suffering from haemophilia, who as a result of receiving infected blood products in the United Kingdom and suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome are infected with human immune deficiency virus and are in need of assistance, or the needy spouses, parents, children and other dependents of such persons and the needy spouses, parents, children or other dependents of such persons who have died.” [53] The...

7. LCRO 236-2015 DZ v EY [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...DZ, Ms FX and, to some extent, J know the truth. [20] However, Mr DZ’s position is that the Committee was unable to see the truth behind the fiction created by Ms EY and Ms FX. He believes he is one of many men who have “their fundamental human rights stripped by deceptive and venomous ex partners assisted happily by lawyers”. Mr DZ says Ms EY read the affidavits, agreed them, signed them and certified them. He reasons that “to all intents they are her documents that sh...

8. 2017 NZSSAA 051 (6 September 2017) [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...relation to whether or not work visas are issued. It must simply deal with the fact that Immigration New Zealand has not granted work visas. The appellants are in a situation where they have no income, and no ability to provide for their most basic human needs. They have been fortunate to receive some charitable support. [10] In some cases, it is necessary to consider whether a person is a genuine refugee claimant. The Immigration Act 2009 contains some powers to reject ill-found...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 194 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...damages in this case. It is not a case which sits in the same league as Taunoa v Attorney-General,31 a judgment referred to by Mr Samuels. That case involved severe mistreatment of prisoners in conditions in breach of, in at least one instance, the human rights protection against disproportionately cruel and degrading treatment.32 [42] While I do not consider this to be an appropriate case in which to make an award of damages, I can discern no good reason why a declaration of brea...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 012 Ohau Protection Society v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 7.2 MB]

    ...applicable) exercising the resource consent. Failure to comply with the conditions may result in prosecution, the penalties for which are outlined in Section 339 of the Resource Management Act 1991 . 5. The consent holder shall ensure that, should any human remains or archaeological items be exposed while undertaking works to give effect to cond itions of this consent, works in that area will cease immediately. The Police, Heritage New Zealand, and Kaumatua representing the local Tangata...