In this case, New Zealand’s model meant HPSNZ dealt with NSOs, who then dealt with athletes. Further, HPSNZ had “emphatically” said it had no intention of employing the TAC members and the court accepted there was “also no prior or mutually intended future employment relationship between HPSNZ and TAC’s members.”
Put simply, TAC and HPSNZ were too far apart. The athletes were essentially strangers to HPSNZ and there was no employment relationship for the purposes of the Act’s collective bargaining provisions. Even though “employee” could have an extended definition in some circumstances, these did not stretch to the case at hand.
TAC has the opportunity to seek leave to appeal the court’s decision. If this is granted, then the Court of Appeal will hear the issue. Until this is heard, however, the boundaries of collective bargaining set by the court limit further attempts at collective bargaining.
Helena Scholes is a Senior Solicitor on the Employment Law Team at Lane Neave in Wellington. Sarah Wadworth is a Special Counsel on the Family and Employment Law Teams at Lane Neave in Wellington. Fiona McMillan is a Partner on the Employment Law Team at Lane Neave in Auckland. Andrew Shaw is the Managing Partner and Head of the Employment Law Team at Lane Neave in Christchurch. Andy Bell is a Partner specialising in employment law and relationship property at Lane Neave in Wellington.
