ClickCease

PAYNE and Ors v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and Anor [2025] NZERA 79 - Preliminary strike-out (settlement/estoppel) issues

A preliminary determination dealing with a strike-out application, including whether the Authority was prevented from hearing the claims because of a prior settlement and related legal doctrines.


PAYNE and Ors v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES MANATŪ AHU MATUA and Anor [2025] NZERA 79

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 79
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: PAYNE and Ors v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and Anor
  • Authority member: Laurie Newhook
  • Investigation meeting: 10 October 2024 (Auckland)
  • Determination date: 14 February 2025
  • Outcome: Preliminary determination on strike-out/settlement issues (estoppel/record of settlement) and jurisdiction.

Story in plain English

This is a preliminary determination on a strike-out application, including whether earlier settlement arrangements prevent the Authority from hearing the claims.

In summary, The investigation meeting to hear submissions was held on 19 November 2024 in Auckland with some employees attending by audio-visual link. After that, They continue through a restructure proposal and decision by MPI, subsequent PSA legal action and a settlement agreement reached. Later, On 27 May 2020 MPI advises staff by letter of changes to shift conditions for some staff and redeployment to other roles while the border is closed. The determination records that I recognise time and expense was likely also incurred at mediation. 5 The Act, Sch 2, cl 12A(1). 6 FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102. • • • Although the negotiation at mediation cannot be examined, MPI recognised before the 2022 proceeding and mediated settlement that the 4 x 4 roster was the substantive roster. The Authority notes that This is stated in an email of 7 July 2021 sent to those identified as permanently located at Auckland Airport working a 4 x 4 roster. Ultimately, PSA Meeting Minutes of 30 June 2021 refer to the legal team's view that MPI can move staff legally under the change process. In the end, In light of both the email and meeting evidence The Authority concluded that the employees were aware in mid-2021 of the PSA advising them of its view that the change process could alter their work location.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are PAYNE and Ors (employee) and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES MANATŪ AHU MATUA and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: .
  • Authority member: .

Key events described

  • The investigation meeting to hear submissions was held on 19 November 2024 in Auckland with some employees attending by audio-visual link.
  • They continue through a restructure proposal and decision by MPI, subsequent PSA legal action and a settlement agreement reached.
  • On 27 May 2020 MPI advises staff by letter of changes to shift conditions for some staff and redeployment to other roles while the border is closed.
  • I recognise time and expense was likely also incurred at mediation. 5 The Act, Sch 2, cl 12A(1). 6 FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102. • • • Although the negotiation at mediation cannot be examined, MPI recognised before the 2022 proceeding and mediated settlement that the 4 x 4 roster was the substantive roster.
  • This is stated in an email of 7 July 2021 sent to those identified as permanently located at Auckland Airport working a 4 x 4 roster.
  • PSA Meeting Minutes of 30 June 2021 refer to the legal team's view that MPI can move staff legally under the change process.
  • In light of both the email and meeting evidence The Authority concluded that the employees were aware in mid-2021 of the PSA advising them of its view that the change process could alter their work location.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
  • Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics