|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Fleet v RTN Ltd
2 May 2008, V Campbell, AA 164/08, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement - No appearance by respondent - Applicant had not received sum owed under agreement - Compliance ordered - COSTS - Successful compliance order application - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Authority found applicant incurred expenses which would have been unnecessary had respondent complied with settlement - Respondent to pay applicant $500 costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs in favour of applicant ($500)
Henning (Labour Inspector) v Vizual Photomedia Ltd
9 Mar 2009, J Crichton, CA 26/09, (4 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - No appearance for respondent - In earlier determination Authority found no inherent power to simply enforce Labour Inspector's assessment of moneys owed to employee - Application brought as compliance order not demand notice as compliance sought under both Holidays Act 2003 ("HA") and Wages Protection Act 1983 ("WPA") - Section 224 ERA conferred power on labour inspectorate to generate demand notices in respect of enforcement of HA and Minimum Wage Act but not WPA - Authority satisfied wages due and owing under WPA - Compliance ordered - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Authority satisfied applicant made out arrears of holiday pay claims under ERA - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for breaches of WPA and HA - Authority found penalty appropriate under s13 WPA - Found respondent had ample opportunity to make payment or make arrangements with applicant but failed to do so - Found penalties also appropriate for breaches of s23 and 49 HA given respondents inordinate delay in dealing with matter appropriately
Result: Compliance ordered ; Arrears of wages ($996.92) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($1,435.15) ; Penalty ($1000 breach of HA) ($2000 breach of WPA) (Payable to applicant) ; Costs to lie where they fall
Janovec & Anor v Cowes Bay Estate Ltd
19 May 2008, R Arthur, AA 182/08, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicants sought compliance with Authority determination - Respondent advised part of outstanding sums owing available for applicants to collect but not full amount as respondent intended to challenge Authority determination - Authority determination not stayed by filing of challenge - Respondent still obliged to pay sums outstanding unless Authority or Court ordered stay - Authority found no challenge filed by respondent and no order for stay in effect - Compliance ordered - Respondent warned of consequences of failure to comply with Authority's orders
Result: Compliance ordered ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Labour Inspector (Lines) v McCarthy
29 Apr 2008, J Crichton, CA 46/08, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Compliance with demand notice sought - No objection to demand notice - No appearance for respondent - Respondent made partial payment but amount still outstanding - Authority satisfied demand notice properly served on respondent - Respondent directed to comply with demand notice within 14 days of determination - Respondent was legal practitioner - Authority felt by ignoring Labour Inspector and failing to engage with Authority's processes respondent failed to live up to high standard of legal profession - Determination referred to Executive Director of Canterbury District Law Society for consideration by Council
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs to lie where they fall
Liley v Fashion Traders Group Ltd
26 May 2008, R Arthur, AA 189/08, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement - No appearance for respondent - Authority satisfied respondent had not complied with settlement - Compliance ordered - PENALTY - Authority found penalty appropriate not only to mark respondent's blatant breach of agreement but to act as deterrent to parties who entered settlement agreements but failed to honour them - Respondent's withholding of payment appeared deliberate and for no good reason - Penalty of $1,000 appropriate, split between applicant and Crown - COSTS - Applicant entitled to reasonable contribution to costs - Costs of $400 awarded - Respondent warned of consequences of failure to comply with Authority's orders
Result: Compliance ordered ; Penalty ($1,000)($500 payable to Crown)($500 payable to applicant) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($400) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Postal Workers Union & Anor v New Zealand Post Ltd
29 Feb 2008, H Doyle, CA 20/08, (11 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Authority to determine whether second applicants entitled to payment to attend mediation - Problem arose when first applicant advised respondent that second applicant's wished to proceed to mediation - Respondent advised first applicant that second applicants would have to apply for special leave without pay, lieu days or annual leave - Second applicant claimed requirement to attend mediation on leave without pay or annual leave breached express and implied terms of Collective Employment Agreement ("CEA") - Also claimed requirement breached Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA") and Holidays Act 2003 ("HA") - Compliance sought with good faith and fair treatment requirements to allow second applicants to attend mediation on pay - Respondent argued requirements lawful and met obligations under CEA, ERA and HA - Second applicants viewed leave entitlements as precious and not to be used to participate in mediation - Second applicants claimed physical nature of work meant needed to go home after rounds to eat and unhappy to attend mediation in own time - Respondent claimed no written policy employees to attend mediation on pay - Respondent conceded managers may approve payment to employees to attend mediation as part of mediated settlement - Authority to consider whether breach of express provision of CEA or statutory obligation - If no breach then to consider whether implied term existed - Applicants claimed requiring employees to take annual leave breached express part of CEA - Authority not satisfied from evidence respondent refused leave or uncooperative in arranging for employees to attend mediation - Authority found no breach of CEA where up to employee whether to take leave to attend mediation - Authority found no express term in CEA that provided employee would be paid - Applicants claimed requirement to take annual leave to attend mediation also breach of good faith principles in ERA - Also claimed breach of s3 HA as time spent resolving grievances neither restful nor recreational - Authority found promotion of mediation in ERA could not be converted to specific term - Authority found not an object of ERA to address inherent inequality in employment relationship by imposing term into CEA - Found duty of good faith in ERA did not extend to imposing term into CEA - Authority accepted annual leave for rest and relaxation, however, no breach of HA - Authority also considered whether term could be implied - Authority found such a term may be reasonable but not necessary to give business efficacy to CEA - Compliance order declined
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Reeper v Glenorchy Hotel and Backpackers Ltd
24 Mar 2009, H Doyle, CA 35/09, (4 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement - No statement in reply lodged - No appearance by respondent at telephone conference - Authority issued notice of direction for respondent to provide reason for non-compliance - Respondent left voice message with Authority support officer - Support officer unable to contact respondent - Hearing date set down - Authority satisfied respondent failed to pay settlement sum due - Compliance ordered - Applicant claimed interest on settlement sum - Authority awarded interest from date of settlement until date of payment, as settlement sum comprised of arrears of wages - COSTS - Authority accepted applicant incurred additional legal fees due to respondent's non-compliance - Authority awarded reasonable costs and disbursements in favour of applicant
Result: Compliance ordered ; Interest (5%) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($625) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
