Mount Cook Airline Ltd v E tū Incorporated - [2024] NZCA 19
Date of Judgment
06 March 2024
Decision
Mount Cook Airline Ltd v E tū Incorporated (PDF 431 KB)
Summary
Employment - Minimum wage
Mount Cook Airline Ltd employs both part-time and full-time cabin crew. The part-time cabin crew work six days over a fortnightly pay period rather than the nine days worked by full-time cabin crew in exchange for a pro-rata (2/3) salary. E tū Inc, the union for the cabin crew, successfully challenged the pro-rata approach to calculating the salaries of part-time cabin crew in the Employment Court. The Employment Court held that cl 4(d) of the Minimum Wage Order 2021 (the Order) required that the part-time cabin crew be paid at least the full fortnightly minimum wage rate specified in the Order regardless of the number of hours actually worked per fortnight. Mount Cook appealed.
The appeal is allowed. The Employment Court erred in its interpretation of cl 4(d) of the Order as it applies to part-time salaried employees. Clause 4(d) specifies a minimum “rate” of wages, not an absolute monetary sum. The use of the word “rate” envisages a proportional relationship between two things, with one of those things commonly being a unit of time (as in this case). The fortnightly minimum wage rate is payable to an employee who works 80 hours over a fortnightly period and must be pro-rated for an employee who works less than that. The pro-rata interpretation of clause 4(d) is supported by the plain meaning of the clause, the statutory context, the statutory purpose, the legislative history and previous case law.
Any order as to costs that has been made in the Employment Court is set aside. Costs in the Employment Court are to be determined by that Court in light of this judgment.
The respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
Mount Cook Airline Ltd employs both part-time and full-time cabin crew. The part-time cabin crew work six days over a fortnightly pay period rather than the nine days worked by full-time cabin crew in exchange for a pro-rata (2/3) salary. E tū Inc, the union for the cabin crew, successfully challenged the pro-rata approach to calculating the salaries of part-time cabin crew in the Employment Court. The Employment Court held that cl 4(d) of the Minimum Wage Order 2021 (the Order) required that the part-time cabin crew be paid at least the full fortnightly minimum wage rate specified in the Order regardless of the number of hours actually worked per fortnight. Mount Cook appealed.
The appeal is allowed. The Employment Court erred in its interpretation of cl 4(d) of the Order as it applies to part-time salaried employees. Clause 4(d) specifies a minimum “rate” of wages, not an absolute monetary sum. The use of the word “rate” envisages a proportional relationship between two things, with one of those things commonly being a unit of time (as in this case). The fortnightly minimum wage rate is payable to an employee who works 80 hours over a fortnightly period and must be pro-rated for an employee who works less than that. The pro-rata interpretation of clause 4(d) is supported by the plain meaning of the clause, the statutory context, the statutory purpose, the legislative history and previous case law.
Any order as to costs that has been made in the Employment Court is set aside. Costs in the Employment Court are to be determined by that Court in light of this judgment.
The respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.