ClickCease

A group of MPI employees sought to pursue claims arising from roster and restructure changes despite earlier litigation and a mediated settlement. The preliminary determination addressed whether the claims were barred by the certified settlement, estoppel or the Authority's jurisdiction.

The short answer

The ERA determined the strike-out and settlement-bar issues as preliminary questions, distinguishing what had actually been resolved by the earlier s 149 settlement from any claims still capable of proceeding. Costs were reserved for later determination.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics