|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Dunedin City Council v Brown
19 Dec 2008, P Cheyne, CA 196/08, (6 pages)
DISPUTE - Whether respondent contractually bound to be personally available on-call at all times to receive and respond to civil defence warnings and alerts - Respondent previously on-call outside ordinary working hours since employment began - Applicant submitted implicit agreement existed that respondent to continue to perform on-call duty - Authority considered individual employment agreement ("IEA") and job description - Found respondent had obligation deduced by implication or interpretation of express terms of contract - From overall assessment of job description, found clear that key tasks clause in IEA included obligation for respondent to personally perform on-call duty - Term of employment that respondent primary person on-call for civil defence warnings in relevant area - Length of service twenty six years - Manager, civil defence and rural fires
Result: Questions answered ; Costs reserved
New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union (Inc) v SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd
1 Dec 2008, M Urlich, AA 408/08, (4 pages)
DISPUTE - Parties agreed to two week annual shut down during Christmas and New Year - Dispute as to appropriate payment for public holidays over shut down - Applicant argued parties could not contract out of obligations under Holidays Act 2003 ("HA") so public holidays falling in annual shut down must be treated same as public holidays falling at any other time - Respondent argued parties agreed to suspend usual roster arrangement, affecting calculation of payment of public holidays - Issues for determination: would the days in question otherwise be working days for employee; if so, what was the relevant daily pay for those days - First criteria to consider under s12 HA in determining what would otherwise be a working day was relevant employment agreement - Collective employment agreement ("CEA") deemed employees during shut down to be "five days per week, eight hours per day" employees - Authority found that work pattern replaced suspended roster system - Therefore "otherwise working days" contemplated by s49 HA were any days which fell in the "five days per week" span of notional work pattern - Relevant daily pay, defined in s9 HA, related only to "the day concerned" - Day concerned was one of "five days per week, eight hours per day" days - Therefore, per CEA, relevant daily pay must be reckoned at eight hours per day - No reasonable expectation that there would be work on "the day concerned" - Evidence of work completed during annual shut down, paid at 12 hours, was worked on voluntary basis and falls outside provisions concerning annual shut down
Result: Questions answered ; Costs reserved
New Zealand Public Service Association Inc v Auckland District Health Board and 16 Ors
19 Dec 2007, P R Stapp, WA 173/07, (7 pages)
DISPUTE - Interim decision as part of wider employment relationship issue - Interpretation of clause in National Terms of Settlement relating to scales of pay for nurses represented by different unions - Top and bottom of scales equal when negotiations completed but differences emerged when nurses moved to new scales - Whether clause relating to "comparable pay for positions of comparable value" intended parties to revisit salary scale - Respondents argued clause only intended to address end points of scales - Supported by use of "position" which indicated it applied to classes of occupational groups or roles within organisation rather than comparison on individual basis as suggested by applicant - Clause related to ensuring end points of salary scales were comparable and not necessarily to having same individual steps of scales - Placement within scales matter of separate negotiation involving different unions and translation exercises - Leave reserved on further questions if required
Result: Question answered in favour of respondent ; No order for costs
Notman v CEA Trading Ltd
18 Dec 2008, P Montgomery, CA 195/08, (3 pages)
DISPUTE - Applicant resigned, tendering three month notice period - Respondent declined notice period, offering one month notice period - Applicant declined shortened notice period - Respondent stated employment to end one week from date of resignation letter, alleging company's normal practice was one week notice period - Applicant claimed entitled to balance of notice period and alleged was unjustifiably dismissed - Determination only determined principal issue of notice period - No written employment agreement nor evidence of agreed required period of notice upon termination of employment relationship - Applicant cited principle in Coca Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd v Kaczorowski [1998] 1 ERNZ 264 that giving of long period of notice generally amounts to affirmation of contract - Authority found one matter for employer to suggest preference for shorter notice period than that tendered, but another to enforce that notice period if employee declined - Found genesis of problem was respondent's failure to comply with legal requirement to provide employment agreement setting out agreed notice provisions - Found in absence of agreed period of notice, applicant entitled to submit three month notice period - At that point respondent could determine, in consultation with applicant, whether all or part of notice period was required to be worked - Parties directed to mediation to resolve remaining issues - Area Manager
Result: Questions answered ; Orders made
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
