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
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics