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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics