New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Incorporated

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA274/2022
[2022] NZCA 429

BETWEEN	NEW ZEALAND TRAMWAYS & PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION WELLINGTON INCORPORATED Applicant
AND	TRANZURBAN HUTT VALLEY LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Katz JJ
Counsel:	P Cranney for Applicant D D Vincent and R J Bayer for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	12 September 2022 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the question set out in [4] (Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc [2022] NZEmpC 75).

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

The New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc (the Union) applies for leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Court.[1] This Court may grant leave if satisfied that the application for leave raises a question of law of general or public importance.[2]
[1]Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc [2022] NZEmpC 75 [Employment Court decision].
[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).
The issue before the Employment Court was the correct interpretation of the term “work period” in s 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to workers working split shifts, specifically whether, for the purposes of determining an employee’s entitlement to rest and meal breaks, each split shift constitutes a separate “work period”. The Employment Relations Authority held that it did.[3] The Employment Court allowed Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd’s appeal against the Authority’s decision.[4] It held that rest and meal breaks were to be calculated by reference to hours when an employee has work responsibilities.[5] This calculation would not include periods when the employee is not engaged for work.[6] Thus, it was possible for separate shifts to constitute separate “work periods”.[7] The Employment Court held that whether distinct shifts were separate “work periods” was a question of fact, to be calculated by reference to the actual hours an employee is required to perform work duties, and the terms of their employment agreement.[8]
[3]New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union v Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd [2021] NZERA 342.
[4]Employment Court decision, above n 1, at [66].
[5]At [62].
[6]At [45]–[46].
[7]At [63].
[8]At [64].
We are satisfied that the threshold for leave in s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act is met.
Leave is granted on the question:
Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000?

Solicitors:
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Applicant
CS Law, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal from the New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc against Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd. The central dispute involved the interpretation of the term "work period" as defined in section 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000, particularly concerning employees working split shifts and their entitlement to rest and meal breaks. The Employment Court had previously ruled against the Union's interpretation that each split shift constituted a separate "work period". The Union sought leave to appeal this decision, arguing that the Employment Court had misinterpreted the statute.

The legal issue at the heart of this appeal was whether the Employment Court correctly interpreted section 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in the context of employees with split shifts. Specifically, the court had to determine whether each split shift should be considered a separate "work period" for the purposes of calculating rest and meal breaks. The Employment Court had held that such breaks were to be calculated based on hours of actual work responsibilities, thus allowing separate shifts to be considered separate "work periods" under certain circumstances. The Union contended that this interpretation was incorrect and that the Employment Court had erred in its legal reasoning.

In granting leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the application raised a question of law of general or public importance. The court was satisfied that the statutory threshold for granting leave was met, as the issue concerned a potentially significant interpretation of employment legislation that could have wide-ranging implications for employees working split shifts. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and directed that the question of whether the Employment Court erred in its interpretation of section 69ZC of the Employment Relations Act 2000 be addressed in the substantive appeal.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that leave to appeal was granted on the specified question, and the case would proceed to a full hearing to determine the correct interpretation of the term "work period" as it relates to split shifts under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established