[New Zealand] Essential workers stood down in lockdown entitled to minimum wage

New Zealand’s Court of Appeal has found that 'essential' workers who did not work during the country's Level 4 lockdown - as directed by their employer - should have been paid the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 1983, Mondaq reports.

Background

Gate Gourmet provides in-flight catering services for passenger aircraft. Its employees were employed for a minimum 40-hour week for which they were paid the minimum wage.

During New Zealand’s initial Level 4 lockdown, beginning March 2020, Gate Gourmet remained working as an 'essential service' but due to the lockdown restrictions and the greatly reduced commercial aircraft movements, there was very little work available.

Gate Gourmet advised its employees that the company would partially shut down operations and - conditioned upon receiving a government wage subsidy - employees would receive 80 per cent of their normal pay. Employees were given the choice to use their annual leave entitlement to take leave or to use their entitlement to 'top up' their pay to 100 per cent.

Gate Gourmet directed its employees to stay home unless they were rostered on and as a result of the significantly reduced amount of work available, most employees remained at home.

Legal proceedings

The employees issued legal proceedings arguing that Gate Gourmet had breached the Minimum Wage Act. The company argued that employees were not entitled to the minimum wage because they were not actually working.

The Employment Court found that when the employees remained at home, they were not working under s6 of the Minimum Wage Act and therefore Gate Gourmet was not required to pay the employees the minimum wage.

The Court of Appeal has now overturned that judgement ruling that the minimum wage is payable for the hours of work that employees had agreed to perform but did not perform, because of the direction from their employer not to come to work.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that its ruling does not take away the ability for an employee to agree with the employer to take leave without pay or reduce the agreed hours to be worked (the minimum wage would then apply only to the reduced hours of work).

Read the Court of Appeal's full judgement.

Source: Mondaq

(Link via original reporting)

New Zealand’s Court of Appeal has found that 'essential' workers who did not work during the country's Level 4 lockdown - as directed by their employer - should have been paid the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 1983, Mondaq reports.

Background

Gate Gourmet provides in-flight catering services for passenger aircraft. Its employees were employed for a minimum 40-hour week for which they were paid the minimum wage.

During New Zealand’s initial Level 4 lockdown, beginning March 2020, Gate Gourmet remained working as an 'essential service' but due to the lockdown restrictions and the greatly reduced commercial aircraft movements, there was very little work available.

Gate Gourmet advised its employees that the company would partially shut down operations and - conditioned upon receiving a government wage subsidy - employees would receive 80 per cent of their normal pay. Employees were given the choice to use their annual leave entitlement to take leave or to use their entitlement to 'top up' their pay to 100 per cent.

Gate Gourmet directed its employees to stay home unless they were rostered on and as a result of the significantly reduced amount of work available, most employees remained at home.

Legal proceedings

The employees issued legal proceedings arguing that Gate Gourmet had breached the Minimum Wage Act. The company argued that employees were not entitled to the minimum wage because they were not actually working.

The Employment Court found that when the employees remained at home, they were not working under s6 of the Minimum Wage Act and therefore Gate Gourmet was not required to pay the employees the minimum wage.

The Court of Appeal has now overturned that judgement ruling that the minimum wage is payable for the hours of work that employees had agreed to perform but did not perform, because of the direction from their employer not to come to work.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that its ruling does not take away the ability for an employee to agree with the employer to take leave without pay or reduce the agreed hours to be worked (the minimum wage would then apply only to the reduced hours of work).

Read the Court of Appeal's full judgement.

Source: Mondaq

(Link via original reporting)