Talk:Employment Court of New Zealand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Employment Court of New Zealand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Employment court[edit]

Anonymous user 101.98.40.201 claimed in this edit that the Employment Court was not set up by the Employment Relations Act 2000, but by an earlier act in 1991. He/she, despite being asked, has been unable to provide a satisfactory reference for the claim, and is on the verge of an edit war over it. IP, please discuss this matter here. Also, please note that as per WP:MOSCAPS (see Institutions - generic words), the word "act" should be uncapitalized if it does not form part of the proper name of a specific act. Wikipedia policy is different from that which might apply elsewhere, and the uncapitalized use of act that you are objecting to is used in the sentence as a generic word. Akld guy (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Here is the Employment Contracts Act 1991: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/eca19911991n22280/

Scroll down to section 103 and read what it says. Please explain how this is not a satisfactory reference and what would be more satisfactory. To be clear, I work in the Employment Court and I was tasked with fixing the mistake on this page. I don't really know the rules about making these edits, so I apologise if I started an "edit war".

An "Act" is not, in any sense of the word, an institution, but like I said, I am not familiar with Wikipedia policy so I won't insist on that any further.101.98.40.201 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I cannot scroll down to section 103. Only the first page of the index, showing items 1-53 appears on my device. I will check it out on another device in the morning. Akld guy (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On another device, I see that you appear to be correct, and what's more, an Employment Tribunal was set up at the same time. For the record, the establishment of the Employment Court is at page 233, with the tribunal a few pages earlier. Why don't you go ahead and change the article. I may modify the reference and/or show the page number. Akld guy (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry again about repeatedly re-editing it. I genuinely did not understand what I was doing wrong.101.98.40.201 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the page number, 233. Also inserted colon characters into your posts to indent them in from the left hand side. This is standard WP practice and shows who you're replying to. Akld guy (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]