[New Zealand] Gate Gourmet workers have leave from Appeal Court to appeal minimum wage ruling

Workers at Gate Gourmet - an aviation catering company - can appeal a ruling that it was not legally obliged to pay non-working employees the minimum wage during lockdown, Stuff reports.

The Swiss-based company which claimed more than $1.5 million in COVID-19 wage subsidies, was found by the Employment Relations Authority to have breached the Minimum Wage Act by paying staff less than the minimum wage.

In 2020 Gate Gourmet appealed the decision to the Employment Court and won.

Five staff sought to appeal the Employment Court decision, which the Court of Appeal granted in a decision released on May 21.

Leave to appeal was reportedly granted based on the question of whether the minimum wage is payable for all of a worker’s agreed contracted hours of work, in the absence of sickness, default or accident; or whether it was lawful to make deductions from wages for lost time not worked at the employer’s direction. 

On March 23, the day the COVID-19 level 4 lockdown was announced, the workers were employed by Gate on the minimum wage for a minimum 40-hour week.

After the company partially shut down its operations during lockdown, Gate did not need some employees to work. Gate agreed to pay those employees 80 per cent of their normal wages - as long as it got the wage subsidy - which it did receive.

The applicants went to the Employment Relations Authority via the Aviation Workers’ United Union (AWUA) saying Gate was breaching the Minimum Wage Act.

In their majority decision, Employment Court judges Joanna Holden and Kathryn Beck said the act “does not provide for a guaranteed minimum income” but only related to payment made in exchange for work done.

“When the defendants stayed home, they were not working for the purposes of s 6 of the [Act], the [Act] was not engaged, and no statutory minimum wage entitlements arose,” they said.

However, Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis disagreed. She said that in common law, where agreed work hours are cancelled, wages remain “payable” if the employee is willing and ready to work those hours.

In his decision, Justice Denis Clifford said the question of law being considered was of general or public importance, meaning the court could grant leave to appeal.

“Minimum conditions of employment, including the minimum wage for hourly work, are fundamental elements of New Zealand’s workplace legislation.”

The difference of views among the Employment Court judges reinforced the legal significance of the question, he said.

The respondents said an appeal was moot, given Gate’s decision not to seek the return of the amount paid following the ERA’s decision.

The authority had ordered Gate Gourmet to reimburse the applicants for the difference between what they had been paid and their entitlement to the minimum wage.

“As the applicants point out, however, there are ongoing proceedings seeking remedies for non-compliance with the authority’s determination. If the Employment Court’s decision is correct, there would have been no non-compliance,” Justice Clifford said.

“The outcome of the appeal would, therefore, determine whether those proceedings continue or come to an end.”

In addition, there was an ongoing issue over costs.

Source: Stuff

(Links via original reporting)

Workers at Gate Gourmet - an aviation catering company - can appeal a ruling that it was not legally obliged to pay non-working employees the minimum wage during lockdown, Stuff reports.

The Swiss-based company which claimed more than $1.5 million in COVID-19 wage subsidies, was found by the Employment Relations Authority to have breached the Minimum Wage Act by paying staff less than the minimum wage.

In 2020 Gate Gourmet appealed the decision to the Employment Court and won.

Five staff sought to appeal the Employment Court decision, which the Court of Appeal granted in a decision released on May 21.

Leave to appeal was reportedly granted based on the question of whether the minimum wage is payable for all of a worker’s agreed contracted hours of work, in the absence of sickness, default or accident; or whether it was lawful to make deductions from wages for lost time not worked at the employer’s direction. 

On March 23, the day the COVID-19 level 4 lockdown was announced, the workers were employed by Gate on the minimum wage for a minimum 40-hour week.

After the company partially shut down its operations during lockdown, Gate did not need some employees to work. Gate agreed to pay those employees 80 per cent of their normal wages - as long as it got the wage subsidy - which it did receive.

The applicants went to the Employment Relations Authority via the Aviation Workers’ United Union (AWUA) saying Gate was breaching the Minimum Wage Act.

In their majority decision, Employment Court judges Joanna Holden and Kathryn Beck said the act “does not provide for a guaranteed minimum income” but only related to payment made in exchange for work done.

“When the defendants stayed home, they were not working for the purposes of s 6 of the [Act], the [Act] was not engaged, and no statutory minimum wage entitlements arose,” they said.

However, Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis disagreed. She said that in common law, where agreed work hours are cancelled, wages remain “payable” if the employee is willing and ready to work those hours.

In his decision, Justice Denis Clifford said the question of law being considered was of general or public importance, meaning the court could grant leave to appeal.

“Minimum conditions of employment, including the minimum wage for hourly work, are fundamental elements of New Zealand’s workplace legislation.”

The difference of views among the Employment Court judges reinforced the legal significance of the question, he said.

The respondents said an appeal was moot, given Gate’s decision not to seek the return of the amount paid following the ERA’s decision.

The authority had ordered Gate Gourmet to reimburse the applicants for the difference between what they had been paid and their entitlement to the minimum wage.

“As the applicants point out, however, there are ongoing proceedings seeking remedies for non-compliance with the authority’s determination. If the Employment Court’s decision is correct, there would have been no non-compliance,” Justice Clifford said.

“The outcome of the appeal would, therefore, determine whether those proceedings continue or come to an end.”

In addition, there was an ongoing issue over costs.

Source: Stuff

(Links via original reporting)