Three60 Consult Logo

Employment Court Finds 100 Reduction Remedies Permissible Act

Posted on: Dec 15, 2016

Among other interesting things, in this recent case the Employment Court closely examined remedies, and in particular the effect of s 124 in reducing remedies to account for an employee’s contributing behaviour.  In other words, where the employee’s behaviour or conduct (the actions of the employee) contributed towards the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance, then the amount of remedies awarded may be reduced accordingly.  Actions that would normally result in a reduction in remedies are those which may be categorised as being “culpable” or “blameworthy”.

In this case, the question of whether the Authority or Court can, having fixed the remedies, then eliminate them entirely where the conduct of the employee is sufficiently egregious as to justify such a conclusion.  This question was also raised (but not answered) by the Court in Harris v The Warehouse Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 188, with Chief Judge Colgan considering that there was a “respectable argument” that it was not permissible to reduce remedies by 100%. You can read our earlier blog post about this case here.

Standard dictionary definitions of the word “reduce” were considered – that is to diminish, lessen or make smaller (which does not extend to outright extinguishment), as were historical statutes and the relevant case law.  The Court referred to a recent UK case from the Employment Appeals Tribunal in which the Tribunal held that the word “reduce” when construed in context did permit a 100 per cent reduction in remedies.  However, the UK legislation differs to New Zealand in that it provides the additional words of “to any extent” which the Employment Relations Act does not provide.  The Court therefore said at para [204]; “on the face of it, s 124 contemplates reduction only“.

However, the Court confirmed that it would be open to the Authority or Court, in cases where the employee should recover nothing, to say so as part of the process of assessing compensation.  Although it appears to achieve the same result, this is different to awarding remedies and then reducing those remedies by 100 per cent:

[216] We conclude that s 124 does not permit complete removal of a previously established remedy. Rather, when there is misconduct which is so egregious that no remedy should be given, notwithstanding the establishing of a personal grievance, the Authority or Court may take that factor into account in its s 123 assessment in a manner that conforms with “equity and good conscience”. The absence of a remedy in rare cases, notwithstanding the establishing of a personal grievance may be appropriate. The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion where there is disgraceful misconduct discovered after a dismissal. We consider that the statutory scheme allows for the same outcome in other instances where, for example, there has been outrageous or particularly egregious employee misconduct. 

A 50% reduction will be “significant”.

The Court then proceeded to make some brief remarks as to the extent of reduction which may be justified, and noted the following observations from previous cases:

  • A reduction of 25% is one of particular significance.
  • The finding of contributory fault of 50% is a significant one.

The Court then respectfully adopted and emphasised these conclusions and awarded Mr Dewar’s remedies be reduced by 16.7 per cent.

Conclusion

A key takeaway from this case is employers will need to prepare themselves for lower reductions in remedies going forward.  Where we may have previously advised that an employee’s contribution will significantly or wholly reduce his/her entitlement to remedies, this will no longer be the case.  We’re expecting to see far lower reductions coming out of the Authority and the Court, and this will have an impact on the monetary value of settlements when it comes to resolving disputes.

See: Xtreme Dining Limited t/a Think Steel v Dewar [2016] NZEmpC 136 (31 October 2016)

 

Disclaimer

This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.

Disclaimer

This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Christmas is coming…

Christmas is coming…

Once Labour Day has been [yes, believe it or not it’s this coming Monday], the next public holidays are at Christmas and New Year. It always feels like employers have to put a bit more thought into Christmas and New Year because: there are four public holidays; this is a time that many businesses have their annual closedown period; many employees take their annual leave; some employees don’t have enough leave to cover this period; some employment agreements have special rates for these public holidays; and, let’s face it, it is a busy busy busy time. In the next few weeks, my colleague, Tasneem Begum, and I will be offering a free webinar for those employers who want a bit more information around those tricky calculations for leave at this time of the year. We will also be able to answer the questions you have and the challenges you face with leave during the Christmas/New Year period. You are not alone with the questions you have – Questions we are often asked at this time of the year are about employing staff to cover the busy Christmas period

Read More
What the heck is going on with pay?

What the heck is going on with pay?

While we are conscious of the impact that inflation is having on wage and salary conversations, there are four other levers that have been, and are being, used to bring about fundamental change and significant uplift to pay in New Zealand. The Government is using these levers to drive increases in pay at various levels in ways that we may not be conscious of. However, when brought together as a single thread, they are having a big impact.

Read More
To Mediate or not to Mediate

To Mediate or not to Mediate

To mediate or not to mediate – that is the question… While William Shakespeare put into verse Hamlet’s soliloquy in endless agonising verse about dire choices with absolutely no chance of a happy ending – it is not so with mediation. Change the name, and the thinking around the word mediation. Let’s start thinking about it and calling it “an opportunity”. That’s really what mediation is; an opportunity for parties in conflict to come together and sort out their problem(s). It doesn’t have to be the only option, but it should be considered as a first step.

Read More
PREV NEXT