Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Dunlop v Prime Resources Company Ltd
20 Sep 2006, D King, AA 297/06, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant raised personal grievance with respondent and sought to attend mediation - Claimed employment agreement provided for initial private mediation - Respondent amenable to mediation but wanted to use The Mediation Service - Submitted clause in employment agreement only applied to in-house disputes where employment relationship ongoing - Wording of agreement clear - Employee could require any personal grievance to be referred to private mediator - Respondent ordered to comply with employment agreement
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved
Gibbons v Jaycey's Laundry
29 Aug 2006, J Scott, AA 276/06, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with settlement agreement - At investigation meeting respondent paid outstanding sum to applicant - Substantive matter fully resolved - COSTS - Applicant sought $262 for costs incurred bringing matter to Authority - Costs reasonable and would not have been necessary if respondent abided by original agreement
Result: Orders accordingly ; Disbursements ($216.81)(Process server and application fee)
Hunt v Williams Contracting Ltd
30 Mar 2007, PR Stapp, WA 49/07, (6 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement – Respondent identified as trading name – Not a legal entity - Limited liability company existed with same name but nothing to do with employment relationship problem – Record of settlement signed by “Justin Mikkelsen” (“JM”) without expressing whom singing for and on behalf of - No appearance at investigation meeting by anyone associated with respondent – Attempts made to serve notice of investigation meeting and statement of problem on respondent through JM and Scott Williams (“SW”) – SW’s contact details appeared on respondent’s correspondence – Applicant proceeded without joining SW or JM and Authority chose not to summons them because if anything to do with matter could reasonably have expected them to appear voluntarily – No written employment agreement or pay slips identifying employer – SW could not be joined as not named party or signatory on record of settlement – In absence of written indication of JM’s authority on record of settlement unable to join him personally – Not enough evidence to suggest JM or SW actually trading as respondent – Applicant claimed employed by JM but no prior notice of this before investigation meeting to allow him to respond – Not safe to join JM to proceedings without notice – Mediator appeared to have accepted in good faith respondent was bona fide registered company – However, applicant had primary responsibility to establish correct legal entity – Record of settlement could not be enforced in present form - Copy of determination to be sent to Registrar of Companies and registered company with same name
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs to lie where they fall
New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd
19 Sep 2006, R A Monaghan, AA 298/06, (8 pages)
DISPUTE - Respondent leased aircraft to operate international cargo service - Crew provided as part of "wet lease" - Pilots alleged failure to allow them to operate leased aircraft breached collective employment agreement ("CEA") - Respondent claimed aircraft only available with wet lease - Authority accepted genuine commercial reasons for decision and not attempt to bypass pilot's rights - Applicant believed respondent diminished pilots' job prospects by not offering them positions on freight operation - Contended lease not "short term" as allowed by CEA, and concerned would be renewed - No evidence to indicate respondent planned longer commitment to lease - Disputed clauses already subject to judicial consideration - If stare decisis applied to institutional structure created under Employment Relations Act 2000 Authority bound by interpretation found in Fransham and Others v Air New Zealand Ltd (cited below) - Authority accepted elements of issue estoppel present - Union party acting as applicant rather than affected individual members sufficient to meet requirement that parties to judicial decision, or their privies, be same - Court's interpretation of clauses applied to present facts - Prior to arrangements for wet lease none of respondent's pilots employed in dedicated international cargo operation - Pilot's security and job prospects remained at least as good as were, and not diminished - Conclusion about affect on pilots' prospects meant no need to address whether lease "short term" - Authority declined to make declarations sought - Applications for penalty and compliance orders declined
Result: Application dismissed ; Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Nortje v Encos Global Systems Ltd
29 Sep 2006, J Crichton, CA 145/06, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement - Respondent failed to engage with Authority in any meaningful way or even give own representative proper instructions - No statement in reply - Further delay not fair and just to applicant - Settlement required respondent to pay global sum within week of settlement, but applicant agreed informally to payment by instalments - Last instalment due and owing - Applicant also sought interest - No provision in agreement for interest, but no provision for payment by instalments in way applicant agreed to either - Interest 7 percent
Result: Compliance ordered ; Interest (7%) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Warsame v CCNP Ltd
13 Sep 2006, M Urlich, AA 291/06, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated settlement - No appearance for respondent - Respondent company had changed name and liquidator appointed - Liquidator consented to continuation of proceedings - Respondent had not made payment agreed under settlement - Compliance with record of settlement ordered - Applicant entitled to interest - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant sought contribution to total costs of $1,920 plus $70 disbursements - Appropriate to award $500 costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Interest (9%) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($500)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
