Janet Elsie Lowe v Director-General of Health, Ministry of Health

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 97/2016
[2016] NZSC 143

BETWEEN

JANET ELSIE LOWE
Applicant

AND

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	P Cranney and S N Meikle for Applicant J C Holden and M J R Conway for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	2 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

In Janet Elsie Lowe v Director-General of Health, Ministry of Health, the applicant, Janet Elsie Lowe, sought to challenge a decision made by the Director-General of Health and the Capital and Coast District Health Board regarding her employment status. Lowe argued that she was entitled to certain employee protections and benefits under the Employment Relations Act 2000 due to her role in providing support care under the Carer Support scheme. The respondents, the Director-General of Health and the Capital and Coast District Health Board, maintained that Lowe was not an employee and therefore not entitled to the protections and benefits she claimed. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether Lowe's activities qualified her as a "homeworker" under the Act, thereby deeming her an employee for the purposes of the dispute.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "homeworker" as defined in section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The court had to ascertain whether Lowe's provision of support care under the Carer Support scheme met the criteria for being classified as a homeworker, which would in turn make her eligible for the protections and benefits afforded to employees. This required an examination of the nature of Lowe's work, the relationship between her and the Capital and Coast District Health Board, and the extent of control and direction exercised by the Board over her work activities.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court determined that Lowe did not meet the criteria to be classified as a homeworker under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The court found that Lowe's role as a support care provider under the Carer Support scheme did not involve her undertaking work at a place other than where the services were provided, nor did it involve her performing work in a manner determined by her own initiative and skill. The court emphasised that the key factor was the degree of control and direction exerted by the Capital and Coast District Health Board over Lowe's work, which was not sufficient to classify her as a homeworker. Consequently, the court held that Lowe was not an employee of the respondents for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the question of whether Lowe was a homeworker within the meaning of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The court's decision clarified the scope of the term "homeworker" and reinforced the distinctions between homework and employment under the Act. The judgment underscored the importance of the nature of the work relationship and the level of control and direction in determining employment status.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established