Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA396/2017
[2017] NZCA 477

BETWEEN	CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INC Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	16 October 2017
Court:	Kós P, Harrison and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	J G Miles QC for Applicant K F Radich for Respondent
Judgment:	20 October 2017 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to amend the grounds of appeal is granted.
BLeave to appeal the decision of the Employment Court in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc [2017] NZEmpC 78 is granted.
CThe approved question for consideration by this Court is whether the Employment Court erred in holding that the respondent’s removal of a work category from the collective agreement did not amount to a variation itself requiring further agreement.
DNo order for costs is made.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

Introduction

The Court is satisfied that the question approved is one raising a question of public importance and where good reason exists for consideration of it on appeal by this Court. Inasmuch as it is based on an alleged omission to consider relevant provisions of the collective agreement we are satisfied the question is not barred by s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The applicant sought to advance two further questions for consideration on appeal. The plain focus of those questions is construction of the collective agreement. Despite Mr Miles QC’s ingenious efforts to enlarge the issues to embrace statutory construction, we are satisfied that those questions are barred by s 214(1). In reaching its decision the Employment Court did not adopt irregular or unorthodox contractual interpretation techniques.[1] As the Supreme Court has observed, where the Employment Court adopts an interpretation engaging an orthodox approach to contractual interpretation the senior appellate courts must observe the statutory constraint and not intervene, even if they were to doubt the correctness of the outcome.[2] We make no comment as to the correctness or otherwise of the Judge’s interpretation of the collective agreement. But his approach, in context, was orthodox and cannot be recontested in a second appeal. That is the effect of s 214(1) of the Act.

Result

[1]New Zealand Airline Pilots Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZSC 111, [2017] NZELR 402 at [21], [46] and [66]; and Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2010] NZCA 196, (2010) 7 NZELR 329 at [18].

[2]New Zealand Airline Pilots Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd, above n 1, at [21].

The application to amend the grounds of appeal is granted.
Leave to appeal the decision of the Employment Court in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc is granted.[3]
[3]Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc [2017] NZEmpC 78.
The approved question for consideration by this Court is whether the Employment Court erred in holding that the respondent’s removal of a work category from the collective agreement did not amount to a variation itself requiring further agreement.
No order for costs is made.

Solicitors:
Hesketh Henry, Auckland for Applicant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, the applicant sought to appeal a decision of the Employment Court. The applicant, Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc, challenged the respondent's removal of a work category from a collective agreement, arguing that this constituted a variation requiring further agreement. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the Employment Court erred in its interpretation of the collective agreement and the statutory framework governing employment relations.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Employment Court had erred in its interpretation of the collective agreement and the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the removal of a work category from the collective agreement by the respondent constituted a variation that required further agreement under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Court also had to consider whether the Employment Court's interpretation of the collective agreement was orthodox and whether the statutory constraints on appealing such interpretations applied.

The Court of Appeal held that the question raised was one of public importance and that good reason existed for considering it. The Court granted the application to amend the grounds of appeal and allowed the appeal. It was determined that the Employment Court did not err in its interpretation of the collective agreement, as its approach was orthodox and aligned with established principles of contractual interpretation. The Court found that the statutory constraint in section 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applied, preventing the reconsideration of the Employment Court’s interpretation of the collective agreement. However, the Court approved the question regarding the statutory interpretation of whether the removal of the work category constituted a variation requiring further agreement.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and specified the approved question for consideration. The Court did not make any order for costs. The decision underscores the importance of orthodox interpretation techniques in employment relations and the limitations on appellate review of such interpretations under the statutory framework.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established