Progressive Meats Limited v. Ministry of Health

Progressive Meats was charged with an offence for infringing s5(1) of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 which requires employers to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure there is no smoking in the workplace. The District Court found that Progressive Meats had infringed s5(1) by establishing a designated smoking room for its employees who were smokers. Prior to entering a conviction it asked the High Court to rule on the question of whether the smoking room came within the definition of "workplace" in the Act. The High Court answered that question "yes" (see: Progressive Meats Limited v Ministry of Health (20 September 2006). This case was an appeal against that decision.

Progressive Meats had established the designated smoking room because, following a change in the law relating to hygiene requirements, employees could no longer go outside during their breaks to smoke and were therefore unable to smoke during their shifts.

As it had in the Courts below, Progressive Meats argued for a narrow construction of the term "workplace", because, it said, the purpose of the law was to ensure that non-smokers were not affected by second-hand smoke and the smoking room it had constructed met that objective. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court and the High Court that the smoking room fell within the definition of "workplace". The language was plain. The Court also had regard to Parliament's intention as set out in the report of the Select Committee who had considered the preliminary draft of the Bill; in particular, the Select Committee had expressly considered and rejected an exception for designated smoking places.

Progressive Meats Limited v Ministry of Health [2008] NZCA 162; [2008] NZAR 633

  • New Zealand
  • Jun 10, 2008
  • Court of Appeal of New Zealand

Parties

Plaintiff Progressive Meats Limited

Defendant Ministry of Health

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In any event, the interpretation adopted by the courts below is consistent with the narrower purpose of ensuring non-smokers are not affected by smoking. It is quite possible to envisage fairly slight variations on the factual position which illustrate that. For example, while non-smokers do not use the smoking room, it is possible that they may do so. This is not a situation where the literal meaning gives rise to a strained interpretation. Further, on the appellant’s argument, that the smoking room is “one removed” and so outside of the definition, Progressive would be acquitted whether or not the smoking room had any effective ventilation. In other words, the appellant’s interpretation is not dependent on the existence of appropriate ventilation but rather on the fact that the relevant room is off an ancillary area. That interpretation does not serve the purpose of the Act."