Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Booker (Labour Inspector) v Storey t/a The Alteration Shop
10 Aug 2006, R Arthur, AA 260/06, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant Labour Inspector sought compliance with determination of Authority - No appearance by respondent - Respondent directed to comply with original orders to pay arrears of holiday pay, interest, disbursements and penalty - Respondent reminded of consequences of failure to comply with compliance order
Result: Compliance ordered ; Orders accordingly ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Booker (Labour Inspector) v Storey t/a The Alteration Shop
10 Aug 2006, R Arthur, AA 261/06, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant Labour Inspector sought compliance with determination of Authority - No appearance by respondent - Respondent directed to comply with original orders to pay arrears of holiday pay, interest, disbursements and penalty - Respondent reminded of consequences of failure to comply with compliance order
Result: Compliance ordered ; Orders accordingly ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association Inc v Mount Cook Airline Ltd
11 Aug 2006, P Montgomery, CA 121/06, (6 pages)
DISPUTE - Applicant sought number of determinations regarding interpretation, application and operation of collective employment agreement ("CEA") - Whether Bangkok Daily Expense Allowance ("DEA") agreed between parties - CEA did not provide DEA for Bangkok - Parties entered temporary arrangement that referred to template used by another airline to set allowances - Issue of good faith raised over template - Respondent may have misrepresented position on possession of template but given applicant had document it said was relevant to issue, scales evenly balanced - Relevance of document over 25 years old exercised Authority's mind considerably - Parties directed to agree to quantum for Bangkok DEA as required by CEA - Respondent entitled to continue to require pilots to depart for and train in Bangkok - Respondent not in breach of CEA in requiring and rostering pilots to depart for Bangkok - Temporary agreement remained in force as no further agreement reached - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Application for order respondent cease requiring and rostering pilots to depart for Bangkok until DEA agreed declined - Application for order requiring respondent to apply agreed process to fix agreed permanent DEA declined - Both parties to resolve quantum issue - PENALTY - Penalties for breach of CEA and good faith obligations declined
Result: Orders accordingly ; Application dismissed (Compliance order and penalty) ; Costs reserved
Strait Freight Ltd v Shackleton and Ors
24 Jul 2006, P Montgomery, CA 107/06, (6 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Compliance with record of settlement sought - Also sought compensation for losses suffered, or order that respondents account for profits resulting from breaches of restraint of trade - Applicant also sought penalty for breaches - Appeared that having negotiated restraint, respondents sought to "wriggle out" of terms - No evidence to support claim employment agreements signed under duress - Respondents breached record of settlement by carrying freight for applicant's clients - Authority did not accept term "king pin towing" redundant in record of settlement - Respondents to account for profits and pay applicant profits garnered from unlawful transactions because it lost opportunities as result of breaches - Respondents to desist from undertaking work in breach of record of settlement
Result: Compliance ordered ; Orders accordingly ; Interest (8.5%) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
