Foster v Wilson [2022] NZHC 1955, 10 August 2022
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 10 August 2022
- Neutral
- [2022] NZHC 1955
Areas of law
Judgment analysis
AI-generated summary
It can misstate holdings, facts, or citations. Always confirm against the judgment PDF.
Facts
Ms Siobhán Foster was employed by Rotorua Economic Development Ltd (RED). In late 2021, RED formulated and, on 10 December 2021, approved a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Ms Foster objected to the policy and refused to disclose her vaccination status, leading RED to assume she was unvaccinated. On 15 December 2021, she was stood down on full pay. After determining that no alternative work arrangements were possible, RED gave Ms Foster four weeks' notice of termination of her employment on 17 January 2022. Her employment ended on 15 February 2022. She subsequently filed proceedings in the High Court against Mr Wilson and Mr Brownrigg personally, alleging various breaches of law.
Held
- A claim arising from the termination of employment due to non-compliance with an employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constitutes an 'employment relationship problem' under s 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
- Such a claim, even when framed as a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.
- Consequently, the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
Orders
Ms Foster’s application is dismissed pursuant to s 161(3) of the Employment Relations Act on the basis that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Costs are awarded to Mr Wilson and Mr Brownrigg on a 2B basis.
Key passages4
A defendant who has filed an appearance may apply to the court to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine it. If the court is satisfied it has no jurisdiction, it must dismiss the proceeding.
“The court hearing an application under subclause (3) or (5) must,— (a) if it is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding, dismiss the proceeding...”
The Employment Relations Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationship problems generally, including disputes about employment agreements, breaches of employment agreements, and personal grievances.
“(1) The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationship problems generally, including— ... (e) personal grievances: ... (3) Except as provided in this Act, no court has jurisdiction in relation to any matter that, under subsection (1), is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority.”
An 'employment relationship problem' is a question of fact: if the controversy arises in the course of the employment relationship and in a work context, it will be an employment relationship problem.
“If the controversy arises during the course of the employment relationship and in a work context, then it will be an employment relationship problem…”
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues arising from employment disputes are not outside the purview of the Employment Relations Authority and fall within its exclusive jurisdiction.
“it is clear from the FMV decision and the authorities in subsequent decisions that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues arising from employment disputes are not outside the purview of the Authority and furthermore sit within its exclusive jurisdiction.”
Cases mentioned in judgment
Legislation mentioned
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 10, s 11, s 13, s 15
- Employment Relations Act 2000, s 103, s 142W(3)(e), s 161, s 161(1), s 161(1)(a), s 161(1)(b), s 161(1)(e), s 161(1)(r), s 161(3), s 162, s 164, s 190
- High Court Rules 2016, r 4.56, r 5.49, r 6.27, r 6.28, r 6.29, r 11.5
- Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
- Health Act 1956, s 92Y