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
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Auckland Council summarily dismissed a fitness instructor over an undeclared personal-training business and three social-media videos filmed at a Council leisure centre. The ERA held that the Council relied on policies which did not in substance fit the alleged conflict, failed to raise the contractual obligations it might have relied on, and pursued discipline over matters known long beforehand without first discussing them in good faith. The dismissal was unjustified. Remedies were reduced by 10 percent for the employee's use of customers and the workplace to promote his own business...

Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall's Northland asbestos-surveyor and mould-testing role was genuinely disestablished for commercial reasons, but Consultex Company Limited failed to consult in good faith. It did not meaningfully answer Mr Hall's request for financial information, failed to engage with his redeployment question, and sent a response that strongly suggested the decision had already been made before consultation closed. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and ordered $8,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution...

Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was summarily dismissed by Talley's Limited after a complaint connected with an election for a health and safety representative. The ERA found Talley's had not properly investigated the complaint, had not clearly set out the allegations or supporting information, had not given Mr Potter a fair opportunity to respond, and could not reasonably conclude that he had bullied, intimidated, or attempted to influence the vote. Mr Potter was awarded $20,000 compensation and $7,226.25 gross lost remuneration, no contribution was found...

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

The Department of Corrections dismissed Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi after he used force on a prisoner and did not report the incident. Although he had been acquitted of assault on the basis of self-defence, Corrections revisited the same factual questions and reached the opposite conclusions. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because Corrections blurred the criminal and employment issues, did not properly identify and assess the remaining policy breaches, allowed a conflicted decision maker to continue, and relied on conduct that was not put as an allegation. Reinstatement was declined, but the Authority ordered $17,000 compensation and $19,882.50 lost wages after a 15 percent contribution reduction...

Browse topics