Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated

Last updated

Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Decided28 October 2014
Citation(s)[2014] NZCA 516
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting O'Regan P, Stevens and French JJ
Keywords
Human rights Discrimination Equal Pay Gender

Terranova Homes, also styled as TerraNova Homes and sometimes referred to as Terranova v Bartlett, was a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal concerning equal pay in New Zealand, and turned on the interpretation of the Equal Pay Act 1972, which was enacted in response to the 1971 report of the Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay (Commission report). [1] It was alleged that the wages paid by TerraNova Homes & Care Ltd (TerraNova) to its caregivers were lower than they would be if care giving of the aged were not work predominantly performed by women. [2] O'Regan P, Stevens and French JJ upheld the Employment Court's decision in Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd that TerraNova was discriminating against its female employees. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, although they thought that the issue was more "finely balanced" than the Employment Court had illustrated in its decision. [3]

Contents

The case became a landmark ruling when a subsequent settlement negotiated by the government between the unions and employers was the first instance in New Zealand that acknowledges that in some industries, wages are lower because the work is mainly undertaken by women.

Factual background

TerraNova operates rest home facilities in New Zealand. In 2009, 92 percent of the 33,000 workers in the aged care sector in New Zealand were women. [4] In June 2012, 106 of the 110 caregivers employed by TerraNova were women. No party in the case contended that the four male caregivers were paid more than their female colleagues for doing the same work. [5] However, the respondents argued that this did not mean equal pay exists, rather that the male caregivers' wages were reduced because care giving was seen as "women's work". [2] Caregivers employed by TerraNova were paid between $13.50 and $15 per hour. Where each caregiver fell in that range was based on an assessment of their competence. [5]

Two proceedings were brought against TerraNova in the Employment Court in 2013, both in relation to allegations that it paid its caregivers lower wages that it would otherwise pay if its work force was not predominantly made up of women. [2] The first proceeding was brought by Kristine Bartlett, a rest home caregiver employed by TerraNova. Her statement of claim pleaded two causes of action: that TerraNova's failure to provide for equal pay breached the Equal Pay Act, and also that it breached schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act 2000. She sought an order determining what rate would represent equal pay and an order amending her employment contract to reflect that rate. [6] The second proceeding was brought by Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc (the Union), on behalf of 15 caregivers who were members of the Union, and who considered the wage rates not to provide for equal pay within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act. [6] The Union sought a statement under s 9 of the Equal Pay Act of the general principles of equal pay. [6] Individual employees do not have the right to make applications under s 9; this, the Court of Appeal assumed, was the reason that two separate proceedings were brought in the Employment Court. [6] The Court of Appeal noted in its judgement that, "rather unhelpfully", the statement sought by the Union consists simply of a restatement of the statutory provisions. [6]

The Court also noted that there was a regrettable lack of clarity in the way the Employment Court dealt with the preliminary questions. This was primarily caused by confusion as to which of the proceedings the Employment Court was referring to at various points in its judgement. It also failed to explain how it intended to carry out a s 9 application, or how a s 9 hearing would add to or differ from a determination of the claim already before them, filed by Ms Bartlett. [6] Further complicating matters was the fact that the Court of Appeal was being asked to decide on a question of law before a full examination of facts in a lower court. This required them to take an approach which did not prejudge the outcome of the following inquiry. [6]

Difficulties of the parties

The Court acknowledged three difficulties that were facing the parties, interveners and the Employment Court in this case. [7] The first was the cumbersome syntax and "elliptical" drafting of the Equal Pay Act. [7] The second problem was the ambiguity of the Commission report which led to the Act. The judges found this particularly unfortunate since the wording of s 3(1)(b) was essentially unchanged from the report, meaning that the report was of limited use to the parties, interveners and the courts. [7] The final difficulty was the lack of existing case law on the matter. [7]

Question of law on appeal

Appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Employment Court are limited to questions of law, and leave must be granted for an appeal hearing to take place. [8] The question of law in this case was altered by the Court of Appeal to better reflect the Employment Court's decision. The final question for determination was: "were the answers given by the Employment Court to the 1st and 6th questions at [118] of its decision wrong in law?" [9]

Judgment of the court

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Justice French. The Court dismissed TerraNova's appeal, upholding the Employment Court's decision. [3]

Commission report

The report of the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay in 1971 (Commission report) was relied on heavily by the Employment Court. However, the Court of Appeal found that it was sufficiently ambiguous so as to support all of the parties' competing interpretations. Therefore, it also found that the weight given to the report by the Employment Court was unjustified. [10] The Commission report recognised the "crowding of women" into lower-paying occupations, however it also suggests that the issue was equality opportunity, rather than pay equity. [11] Systemic undervaluation of skills is not mentioned, nor is there any discussion of s 3 of the Government Service Equal Pay Act, which the Court of Appeal considered to be relevant. [10] The Commission rejected the United Kingdom's approach to equal pay with very little discussion, and rejected the Australian approach with little more. [10] The report was also considered to be unhelpful because of its age, and the societal shift in attitude towards enterprise bargaining and away from centralised wage fixing and multi-employer agreements since it was written in 1971. [10]

Text of the Equal Pay Act

The Court identified that there are two separate categories within s 3(1) of the Equal Pay Act 1972 (the Act), and that interpretation of the section must make a meaningful distinction between them. [12] The phrase "would be" in s 3(1)(b) indicated that the comparator was intended by Parliament to be hypothetical, therefore causing the Court to dismiss TerraNova's argument that the Act was solely concerned with internal comparisons between male and female workers under the same employer. [12]

Having decided that external comparators were allowed, the Judges then considered what sort of external evidence could be considered. They noted that s 3(1)(b) contained no restrictions other than to require that the evidence must be in relation to "a hypothetical male with the same or substantially similar skills, responsibility and service performing the work". [13]

For completeness, the Judges also included a brief discussion of s 4 of the Act, which may influence an interpretation of s 3(1)(b). [14] They concluded that it "raises more questions than it answers", and that it was of no practical assistance. [15]

Arguments made by TerraNova

TerraNova made several arguments to establish that the Employment Court's interpretation of the Act was not what Parliament intended. [16] These included the title of the Act, [17] the use of the definite article in various sections, [18] the phrase "under any instrument" in s 3(1) of the Act, [19] the exception in s 2(2) of the Act, [20] and the singular nature of the inquiry based on s 2A of the Act. [21] The Court disagreed with all of these points. However, it was persuaded by TerraNova's final two arguments regarding the mandatory and exhaustive nature of the s 3(1)(b) criteria (although they did not agree that the Employment Court had attempted to insert an additional criterion), [22] and that the comparator was a hypothetical male, not an actual or real male. [23]

Workability, the absence of guidelines and s 9

A "key plank of TerraNova's argument" was the principle that the Court should select the interpretation that is most "practical and sensible". [24] TerraNova claimed that individual employers should not have to "shoulder the burden of rectifying society-wide structural discrimination" or "undertake assessments that are simply beyond their expertise and resources". [25] They argued that Parliament would have been clearer if it intended to impose such a significant burden on employers, and that the absence of guidelines was indicative of a lack of intention. [25] TerraNova also relied heavily on s 9, which provides that the court "shall have power from time to time … to state … the general principles to be observed for the implementation of equal pay". [26] The Court felt, however, that s 9 was very open-ended. They considered its legislative history, which did not serve to clarify the section's meaning, and consequently found that "it is simply not possible to read the [Equal Pay Act] as a carefully drafted and well thought-out piece of legislation". [27]

The Court agreed with TerraNova that there were some workability concerns, however they disagreed that a lack of guidelines was demonstrative of Parliament's lack of intention to impose such a burden on employers. They agreed with the Union and the Human Rights Commission that TerraNova's workability claim was overstated. [28] Their Honours also found that the existence of s 9 of the Equal Pay 1972 was sufficient to "temper concerns about complexity and the lack of guidelines". [28] The issue of workability was therefore not considered to be a determinative issue.

Existence of a settled interpretation

TerraNova made submissions to the Court which asserted that for 40 years the Equal Pay Act 1972 has been interpreted as a statute about equal pay, not pay equity. [29] They also claimed that no determinations on the matter were made until the test case brought by the Clerical Workers Union in 1986, in which the Arbitration Court held that the Act was limited to "ensuring equal pay between male and female employees covered by the same award"; [30] the Court of Appeal disagreed, claiming that determinations were required as early as 1977. It was accepted that regardless of subsequent interpretations, s 3(1)(b) was difficult to interpret and implement. [31] However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Employment Court that the Clerical Workers Union decision was not definitive, and therefore that little weight could be placed on it. [32]

Enactment and Repeal of Employment Equity Act

The enactment of the Employment Equity Act 1990 and its subsequent repeal by the Employment Contracts Act 1991 was argued by TerraNova to be indicative of Parliament's policy decision against legislating for pay equity; a decision which the courts should not subvert by reinterpreting the Equal Pay Act 1972. [33] Citing similar arguments already rejected by the Employment Court, regarding the lack of assistance from comparing and attempting to construe the intentions of differently constituted Parliaments at different times, [34] the Court of Appeal dismissed TerraNova's argument. [33] They acknowledged the principle of legislative harmony, which gave some merit to TerraNova's suggestion that the Employment Court's interpretation of the 1972 Act was disruptive to the overall legislative scheme, and conceded that the Employment Court was too dismissive of this point. However, they ultimately concluded that the assistance this point provided was limited, and therefore not determinative of this issue; they therefore agreed with the Employment Court's decision on this point. [33]

Employment Court's reliance on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides for the right to freedom from discrimination [35] on the grounds of sex. [36] The Employment Court found that TerraNova's interpretation of the Equal Pay Act 1972 would be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, and therefore dismissed it. [37] The Court of Appeal disagreed with that analysis. They held that "even on TerraNova's interpretation, the Act is not discriminatory", it merely narrows the scope of application the non-discrimination provision in the Bill of Rights. [37]

Employment Court's reliance on New Zealand's international obligations

All parties acknowledged that the principles in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers of Equal Value (Convention 100) extend beyond requiring equal pay for the same work. [38] The Court of Appeal pointed to the presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate contrary to New Zealand's international obligations, and therefore concluded that it is arguable that Parliament enacted the Equal Pay Act in order to comply with Convention 100, which it had ratified in 1983. [38] However, given the general nature of the convention and the expansiveness of the interpretation of s 3(1)(b) of the Act that it supports, their Honours held that it was of limited use to them in deciding this case. [38]

Single source doctrine

Their Honours briefly discussed a submission from the Attorney-General regarding the "single source" doctrine established by the European courts. They held that there was a certain logic to it, but were not persuaded of its use in this particular case. [39]

Significance

Initially, little commentary existed on this case. It has been cited formally for its discussion of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, [40] as an authority for the general rule that subsequent statutes are irrelevant as an interpretive aid, [41] and in relation to its discussion regarding the uniformity of language between two statutes. [42] Martin Taylor of the Aged Care Association commented that the decision could have "catastrophic consequences for the sector if businesses were forced to pay workers a significant increase" as a result. [43] Though it predates the TerraNova case, equal pay was also considered by the Human Rights Commission in May 2012. [44]

Upon the Appeal Court's decision, the government announced that it would negotiate with the unions and employers to settle the equal pay claims. In return, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which at the same time merged with the Service and Food Workers' Union to become E tū (Māori: stand tall), held off further legal action. [45] The result of the negotiations was announced on 18 April 2017 by the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman. The settlement would result in pay rises of up to NZ$5,000 for individual employees, and apply to 55,000 care givers. In total, the package would cost about NZ$2b to settle, and would likely result in higher Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) premiums over time and increased rest home costs. It would also likely result in similar settlements being negotiated for other industries, although the Prime Minister, Bill English, cautioned that the health care sector was a unique industry and that there was a high bar to clear for the same conditions to apply to other groups. [46] The settlement is the first instance in New Zealand that acknowledges that in some industries, wages are lower because the work is mainly undertaken by women. [46]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Home care in the United States</span>

Home care is supportive care provided in the home. Care may be provided by licensed healthcare professionals who provide medical treatment needs or by professional caregivers who provide daily assistance to ensure the activities of daily living (ADLs) are met. In-home medical care is often and more accurately referred to as home health care or formal care. Home health care is different non-medical care, custodial care, or private-duty care which refers to assistance and services provided by persons who are not nurses, doctors, or other licensed medical personnel. For patients recovering from surgery or illness, home care may include rehabilitative therapies. For terminally ill patients, home care may include hospice care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span> Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dave Hereora</span>

David Murray Hereora was a New Zealand trade unionist and politician. He was a list MP for the Labour Party from 2002 to 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Darien Fenton</span> New Zealand politician

Darien Elizabeth Fenton is a New Zealand politician and was a Member of Parliament from 2005 until her retirement in 2014.

Pregnancy discrimination is a type of employment discrimination that occurs when expectant women are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant. Common forms of pregnancy discrimination include not being hired due to visible pregnancy or likelihood of becoming pregnant, being fired after informing an employer of one's pregnancy, being fired after maternity leave, and receiving a pay dock due to pregnancy. Pregnancy discrimination may also take the form of denying reasonable accommodations to workers based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Pregnancy discrimination has also been examined to have an indirect relationship with the decline of a mother's physical and mental health. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women prohibits dismissal on the grounds of maternity or pregnancy and ensures right to maternity leave or comparable social benefits. The Maternity Protection Convention C 183 proclaims adequate protection for pregnancy as well. Though women have some protection in the United States because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it has not completely curbed the incidence of pregnancy discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment could ensure more robust sex equality ensuring that women and men could both work and have children at the same time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of New Zealand</span> New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Service & Food Workers Union</span> Trade union in New Zealand

The Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota (SFWU) was a trade union in New Zealand. It was affiliated with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Labour Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Relations Act 2000</span> Statute of the Parliament of New Zealand

The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

SWFU may refer to:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian labour law</span> Laws regulating labour in India

Indian labour law refers to law regulating labour in India. Traditionally, the Indian government at the federal and state levels has sought to ensure a high degree of protection for workers, but in practice, this differs due to the form of government and because labour is a subject in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution. The Minimum Wages Act 1948 requires companies to pay the minimum wage set by the government alongside limiting working weeks to 40 hours. Overtime is strongly discouraged with the premium on overtime being 100% of the total wage. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 mandates the payment of wages on time on the last working day of every month via bank transfer or postal service. The Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishment Act 1960 mandate 15 working days of fully paid vacation leave each year to each employee with an additional 7 fully paid sick days. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 gives female employees of every company the right to take 6 months' worth of fully paid maternity leave. It also provides for 6 weeks worth of paid leaves in case of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees' State Insurance, governed by statutory acts provide workers with necessary social security for retirement benefits and medical and unemployment benefits respectively. Workers entitled to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance are also entitled to 90 days worth of paid medical leaves. A contract of employment can always provide for more rights than the statutory minimum set rights. The Indian parliament passed four labour codes in the 2019 and 2020 sessions. These four codes will consolidate 44 existing labour laws. They are: The Industrial Relations Code 2020, The Code on Social Security 2020, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and The Code on Wages 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment</span> New Zealand government department

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is the public service department of New Zealand charged with "delivering policy, services, advice and regulation" which contribute to New Zealand's economic productivity and business growth.

Labour rights in New Zealand are largely covered by both statute, particularly the Employment Relations Act 2000, and common law. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment carries out most of the day to day administrative functions surrounding labour rights and their practical application in the state.

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

<i>Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment</i>

Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment concerned an application by a Kiribati man, Ioane Teitiota, for leave to appeal against a decision of New Zealand's Immigration and Protection Tribunal that declined to grant him refugee and/or protected person status. Teitiota's case became a cause célèbre for environmentalists and human rights activists as it made its way towards the Supreme Court. Teitiota was declined application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2015. In September 2015 Teitiota was placed in police custody and deported back to Kiribati.

The gender pay gap in New Zealand is the difference in the median hourly wages of men and women in New Zealand.In 2020 the gender pay gap is 9.5%. It is an economic indicator used to measure pay equality. The gender pay gap is an official statistic published annually by Stats NZ sourced from the Household Labour Force Survey.

<i>Taylor v Attorney-General</i> New Zealand High Court judgment

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kristine Bartlett</span> New Zealand aged care worker

Kristine Robyn Bartlett is an aged care worker from Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

Elizabeth Welch Orr was a New Zealand lecturer and a previous Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington. Orr was also a trade union leader and advocate for pay equity.

References

  1. ↑ Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay Equal Pay in New Zealand (September 1971).
  2. 1 2 3 "Terranova Homes & Care v SFWU – appeal dismissed". Scoop. Independent News Media. 28 October 2014. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
  3. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [81].
  4. ↑ Juthika Badkar and Richard Manning "Paid Caregivers in New Zealand: Current Supply and Future Demand" (2009) 35 NZ Popul Rev 113 at 116–117.
  5. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [44]–[50].
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [51]–[63].
  7. 1 2 3 4 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [82]–[85].
  8. ↑ Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.
  9. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [69].
  10. 1 2 3 4 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [86]–[95].
  11. ↑ Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay Equal Pay in New Zealand (September 1971) at [2.3]–[2.4].
  12. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [98]–[103].
  13. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [105].
  14. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [138]–[146].
  15. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [147]
  16. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [111].
  17. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [112]–[115].
  18. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [116]–[119].
  19. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [120]–[121].
  20. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [122]–[125].
  21. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [126]–[130].
  22. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [131]–[132].
  23. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [133]–[135].
  24. ↑ JF Burrows and RI Carter Statute Law in New Zealand (4th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2009) at 329; Director-General of Education v Morrison [1985] 2 NZLR 430 (CA) at 435; Commerce Commission v Fletcher Challenge Ltd [1989] 2 NZLR 554 (HC) at 620; and Official Assignee v Noonan [1988] 2 NZLR 252 (CA) at 255.
  25. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [148]–[152].
  26. ↑ Equal Pay Act 1972, s 9.
  27. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [153]–[163].
  28. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [164]–[175].
  29. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [176]–[181].
  30. ↑ New Zealand Clerical Administrative etc IAOW v Farmers Trading Co Ltd [1986] ACJ 203; Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [31]–[32].
  31. ↑ Progress of Equal Pay in New Zealand: Report of a Committee Appointed by the Minister of Labour (October 1975) at [5.72].
  32. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [181].
  33. 1 2 3 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [182]–[200].
  34. ↑ Dunedin City Council Women's Rest Room Attendants [1976] ICR 7067 at [100].
  35. ↑ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 19.
  36. ↑ Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(a).
  37. 1 2 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [201]–[214].
  38. 1 2 3 Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [215]–[231].
  39. ↑ Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2014] NZCA 516 at [232]–[235].
  40. ↑ Alice Osman "Demanding Attention: The Roles of Unincorporated International Instruments in Judicial Reasoning" (2012) 12 NZJPIL 345.
  41. ↑ Holler v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130 at [55].
  42. ↑ Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand [2015] NZEmpC 171 at [111].
  43. ↑ "Rest home providers consider decision". Radio New Zealand . 28 October 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  44. ↑ Caring Courts (Online ed, New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Wellington, 2012)
  45. ↑ Gillespie, Kiri (22 October 2015). "Carers move closer to pay equity deal". Bay of Plenty Times . Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  46. 1 2 Davison, Isaac (18 April 2017). "Government announces historic pay equity deal for care workers". The New Zealand Herald . Retrieved 18 April 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.