5 months ago

470

Tonight Liz highlights some amazing case law which shows great promise for mandate termination cases.   

Number 8 is approach 40 successful settlements and case wins.   

For a small group that N8 is these are outstanding results!

Number 8 was told we couldn’t do it. We wouldn’t win.

Well we are over and over using the laws that are there to protect us.   

Those that did not like the look of the jab from the get go were labelled selfish, tin hatter conspiracy theorist. Well we were and are continuing to be right!   

Liz details a case Gilbert v Transflield 2013 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-71-Gilbert-v-Transfield-Services-NZ-Ltd.pdf were an electrical worker was made redundant due to a new policy the company had implemented.   

One of his allegations was he was selected for redundancy partly due to his union rep work.   The main issue his lawyers put forward was that Mr Gilbert was not at fault.   

ERA S4 A(1) - no fault situation as in the worker was not at fault for being made redundant and the employer is under an obligation to act a good faith to a larger extent due to the employee’s “No fault“ situation. Whether they were under the order or not

Transfield used a “proprietary” form of psychological assessment for selecting employees from a third party contractor. They used this program as a tick the box situation so they could make people redundant as they saw fit. They were not allowed to find about how this “proprietary” worked due its secrecy. This meant the employer was not able to act in good faith in accordance with duty to act under Employment Relations Act.

Where else have we heard of this situation with a secret proprietary product being used on employees?   

This case is the case law we have been looking for!

 Employers in the public sector are also bond by the Public Services Act Section 73 which is an extra top up - Liz’s second case she will talk about

Health and Safety Regulations  “Safe and Effective” - All new medicines must come through the Medicines Act and by that act cannot be warranted in any way. They were straight out lying about “safe and effective”. Medsafe itself told us in FACT that the effective part was no existent. The judge in the Gilbert case said that the employer acted irrationally and that it was not reasonable. Being reasonable means the employer must know what they are doing!

Which is NOT using a secret psychological employee assessment tool OR an experiential, untested, untrialled, proprietary product that has huge side effects, questionable safety data and not long term study information!!!   The judge told Mr Gilbert that not only were Transfield not telling him about the reasons for sacking - Transfield did not know the reasons for sacking him due to the proprietary information!   

McAlister v Air New Zealand - Supreme Court Judgement. Watch the zoom to find out the gold here https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2009/sc-49-2008-david-mcalister-v-air-new-zealand-limited-civil-judgment.pdf

 Another fantastic zoom full of gems that so few lawyers or otherwise in this country are bothering to try and find or don’t have the skills to find!!!

Loading 5 comments...