Jetstar Airways Limited v Greenslade

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA125/2014
[2014] NZCA 331

BETWEEN	JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED Applicant
AND	RICHARD GREENSLADE Respondent

Court:

Stevens, Harrison and Miller JJ

Counsel:

D J Goddard QC and M W O'Brien for Applicant
R E Harrison QC and R R McCabe for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

17 July 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law:
Did the Employment Court err in finding that:
(a)the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, having regard to the text of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act?
(b)the requirement to take a rest break under an Australian regulatory instrument (Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption) that was required to be complied with pursuant to a New Zealand enactment (Civil Aviation Act 1990) was not a requirement “under another enactment” for the purposes of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act?
(c)cl 19 of the respondent’s Individual Employment Agreement fell within s 69ZG of the Employment Relations Act and was not an unlawful contracting out of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act that was precluded by s 238 of the Employment Relations Act?

BCosts on the application are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

In accordance with French J’s minute of 1 April 2014, we have determined on the papers this application for leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 against a decision of the Employment Court.[1]
[1]Greenslade v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 23.
The respondent does not oppose leave to appeal being granted,[2] though he does not accept the proposed grounds of appeal have any validity. Despite the respondent’s lack of opposition, this Court is still required by s 214 to satisfy itself that the questions of law are appropriate questions on which to grant leave.
[2]By memorandum filed on 24 March 2014.
We are satisfied that the proposed appeal involves questions of law of general and public importance relating to the interpretation and application of the Employment Relations Act. We have reframed the grounds of appeal submitted by the applicants so that they are questions, as the Act only allows leave to be granted on questions of law. The questions of law on which we grant leave are:
Did the Employment Court err in finding that:
(a)the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act, having regard to the text of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act?
(b)the requirement to take a rest break under an Australian regulatory instrument (Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption) that was required to be complied with pursuant to a New Zealand enactment (Civil Aviation Act 1990) was not a requirement “under another enactment” for the purposes of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act?
(c)cl 19 of the respondent’s Individual Employment Agreement fell within s 69ZG of the Employment Relations Act and was not an unlawful contracting out of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act that was precluded by s 238 of the Employment Relations Act?
As we have not heard from the parties on the question of the costs on this application, costs are reserved.

Solicitors:
Kensington Swan, Auckland for Applicant
New Zealand Airlines Pilots Association Inc, Auckland for Respondent

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal from Jetstar Airways Limited against Richard Greenslade. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Employment Relations Act 2000 concerning rest break requirements for flight crew members. The primary issue was whether certain rest period requirements under Australian regulations, mandated by New Zealand law, constituted a rest break requirement under the Employment Relations Act, and if an employment agreement clause could lawfully exclude such requirements. The applicant sought leave to appeal specific findings of the Employment Court, arguing that the Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Employment Court had correctly interpreted the Employment Relations Act in relation to rest period requirements under Australian regulations, and whether these requirements could be considered as "under another enactment" and thus exempt from certain provisions of the Act. Additionally, the Court had to determine if a specific clause in the respondent’s employment agreement was valid and did not unlawfully contract out of the Act’s provisions. The Court had to decide if the Employment Court's findings on these points constituted errors of law warranting an appeal.

In granting the leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the questions of law involved were of general and public importance. The Court reframed the grounds of appeal to align with the statutory requirement for questions of law. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal involved significant legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Employment Relations Act, particularly regarding the interaction between New Zealand law and Australian regulations. The Court identified the specific questions of law on which leave would be granted, focusing on the Employment Court’s interpretation of the Act and the validity of the employment agreement clause. The Court reserved the question of costs on the application for further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established