Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Henning (Labour Inspector) v Glenmavis Ltd
26 Apr 2007, P Cheyne, CA 47/07, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant Labour Inspector sought compliance with demand notice requiring respondent pay holiday pay to two former employees – Respondent objected to paying sums - Alleged employees owed it money and disagreed on whether holidays taken while employed – No objection lodged to demand notice or application for extension of time – Applicant entitled to use District Court debt recovery process to enforce notice and different considerations should not apply to compliance order – Respondent able to pay sums owing – Reluctance to pay appeared to result from dissatisfaction with former employees – Time to raise issues well past – No good reason to explain respondent's failure to lodge objection or statement in reply – Compliance ordered
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved
National Distribution Union v Arthur Barnett Ltd
27 Mar 2007, J Crichton, CA 29/07, (6 pages)
DISPUTE - Interpretation of overtime provision in collective employment agreement ("CEA") - Whether overtime triggered on daily or weekly basis - Applicant's analysis preferred, meant phrase "on a daily basis" made sense in context of clause as whole - Overtime accrued each day - Construction clear from words - Overtime provision in CEA wrongly applied by respondent - COMPLIANCE ORDER - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought compliance order to remedy default, and arrears - Respondent argued application not suitable for compliance order - In reality matter a dispute - Respondent resisted paying arrears as applicant not diligent in progressing claim - Argument had some force - With exception of two year "error period", respondent's interpretation had applied since 1992 - Parties to engage with each other to determine consequences of decision - Leave reserved to return to Authority if matters not resolved
Result: Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved
Rewaita v Walkinshaw t/a Tobias Contracting
13 Apr 2007, D Asher, WA 34A/07, (5 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER – Parties resolved employment relationship problem by consent order – Respondent failed to met applicant as agreed – No payment made – Compliance ordered by Authority on its own motion – Respondent warned of consequences of non-compliance
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
