Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Booker v Lifestyle Decorators Ltd
22 Sep 2006, R Arthur, AA 304/06, (2 pages)
ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant Labour Inspector sought arrears of holiday pay, interest, penalty and filing fee - No appearance by respondent - Applicant's unchallenged evidence accepted - Arrears due and owing - Interest 8 percent - PENALTY - Penalty awarded against respondent - Painter
Result: Application granted ; Arrears of holiday pay ($784.80) ; Interest (8%) ; Penalty ($500)(Payable to Crown) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Jennings v Rodney's Welding Shop Ltd
5 Sep 2006, D King, AA 281/06, (3 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought unpaid annual leave and reimbursement of wages deducted for purportedly unsatisfactory work - No appearance by respondent - At start of investigation meeting Authority informed company in liquidation - Authority support officer also told company no longer trading - Respondent still on companies register and no indication in liquidation - As respondent chose not appear, determination based on applicant's evidence - Holiday pay owing on termination of employment - Deductions illegal - Arrears due and owing - Interest 9.5 percent - PENALTY - Penalty appropriate for breach of Wages Protection Act 1983 - Only Labour Inspector could bring action to recover penalty for breach of s75 Holidays Act 2003
Result: Application granted ; Arrears of wages ($225) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($527.58) ; Interest (9.5%) ; Penalty ($4,000)($2,000 payable to Crown, $2,000 payable to applicant) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Metcalf (Labour Inspector) v Lal t/a Jag Lal Lawyers
10 Oct 2006, R Monaghan, AA 316/06, (1 pages)
ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant Labour Inspector sought arrears on behalf of P - Parties agreed sum owed - Respondent ordered to pay arrears due and owing - Interest 7.7 percent - PENALTY - Penalty sought for failure to pay holiday pay - Respondent indicated impecunious - Previous attempt made to resolve matter but parties unable to agree amount owed - Penalty not warranted in circumstances - COSTS - Applicant entitled to be reimbursed filing fee
Result: Application granted (Arrears of holiday pay) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($918.49) ; Interest (7.7%) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) ; Application dismissed (Penalty)
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
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
