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
Regina Rasheed v Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls [2026] NZERA 326 - school principal reinstated after unjustified dismissal

Regina Rasheed was principal of Zayed College for Girls for about 14 years before being dismissed by the Commissioner in June 2025. The ERA found unjustified disadvantage, unjustified suspension, unjustified dismissal, breaches of the collective agreement and good faith, and ordered reinstatement, lost wages, 23 days sick leave reimbursement, $40,000 compensation, and a Trust penalty...

Natalie Butler-Smith v David and Dale Cavey t/a DG and DV Cavey Partnership [2026] NZERA 324 - farm assistant dismissed before returning from parental leave

Natalie Butler-Smith was a part-time permanent farm assistant who went on parental leave and expected to return to work in February 2024. Before her return, the Partnership told her that her employment was being terminated because of health and safety issues arising from her having a baby on the farm. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $32,432...

Raheel Reddy v Studio Image Limited [2026] NZERA 323 - barber dismissed by text message after lateness and attendance issues

Raheel Reddy worked as a barber for Studio Image Limited. After he was late attending work because he was viewing a replacement car after an accident, Studio Image sent text messages telling him he would be paid his remaining leave and should collect his tools. The ERA found this was a dismissal, not a resignation, and that the dismissal was unjustified.

Junchen Xu v Aurora Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 320 - quantity surveyor wins unpaid wages, holiday pay and unjustified redundancy claim

Junchen Xu worked for Aurora Developments Limited as a project quantity surveyor. The ERA found he was an employee from 1 March 2021, despite the employer saying the first month was only learning and observation. The ERA also found his redundancy dismissal was unjustified because ADL did not consult, did not provide a proposal, and did not explain the business reasons before ending his employment.

Devon Whitham v Brutalitees Limited and Christine Dawson [2026] NZERA 325 - tattoo and piercing apprentice was an employee, not a contractor

Devon Whitham worked at Brutal Ink in New Plymouth after responding to a Facebook post for a piercing apprentice. The ERA found she was an employee of Brutalitees Limited, not an independent contractor, and that her dismissal at a heated meeting on 19 September 2024 was unjustified. The ERA ordered unpaid wages, holiday pay, 13 weeks lost remuneration, $15,000 compensation, and penalties...

Mujahid Khan v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2026] NZERA 316 - interim reinstatement ordered after dismissal of senior quarantine officer

Mujahid Khan was dismissed by the Ministry for Primary Industries after 18 years as a senior quarantine officer. MPI relied on complaints about a lunch visit to a friend's house during work hours, use of an MPI vehicle, and an allegation that he raised his voice at a colleague. The ERA did not finally decide the unjustified dismissal claim, but found there was a serious question to be tried and ordered interim reinstatement to payroll within 5 working days and to his former position within 7 working days...

Browse topics