The vice president's exit does not settle who can review such governance decisions
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand granted a union permission to challenge whether the Employment Court could review its compliance with its own constitution.
In Corrections Association of New Zealand Incorporated v Jenner [2026] NZCA 317, the court granted the Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc (the union) permission to appeal one question of law: whether the Employment Court's power to review the lawfulness of decisions, under s. 194 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), extended to a union's failure to comply with its constitution.
The dispute began after the union's executive committee (the committee) moved to remove its elected vice president in July 2025. The vice president applied to have that decision reviewed by the court and, days later, obtained a temporary order – an interim injunction – that paused the removal while his main claim proceeded.
The Employment Court released its substantive decision on 7 November 2025. It found that the committee had not complied with the union's constitution when it purported to remove the vice president and interpreted the meaning of "just cause" in clause 24.2 of the constitution. The court then ordered the committee to follow a set process, which the committee said it completed before removing the vice president on 15 December 2025.
On appeal, the union argued that a separate body, the Employment Relations Authority, held the sole power under s. 161 of the Act over "matters related to a failure by a union to comply with its constitution," and that no court could review the committee's decision, because the Act barred courts from determining matters reserved to the authority.
The court accepted that the first question was seriously arguable and raised an issue of general and public importance. It said the scope of the Employment Court's review power – and whether Parliament intended the authority and the Employment Court to share that power – affected all unions. Although the vice president had already left office, the court held that the question still mattered beyond this dispute and refused to treat the appeal as having no practical effect.
The court refused permission on a second proposed question, which challenged the finding that a committee resolution had breached the interim injunction. It held that the question asked it to re-examine the merits rather than raising a point of law. The court reserved costs until the main appeal was decided, and noted that a neutral party appointed to assist the court, known as an amicus curiae, might be helpful.
