Dispute - Employment Relations Act 2000
NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd
14 Aug 2007, J Wilson, AA 246/07, (7 pages)
DISPUTE - Respondent upgraded plant - Parties agreed wages would be “made up” to tally (theoretical full production ) during commissioning period - Respondent claimed commissioning period ended when contractors withdrew and stopped payments to employees - Applicant argued period ended several months later when plant consistently reached tally - No agreement as to specific time limit for extra payments - Definition of “commissioning period” - In absence of specific definition agreed on between parties, must be assumed they intended to rely on usually accepted definition - Respondent’s interpretation accepted - Commissioning period ended when builders handed over completed plant to respondent - No further payments due to employees
Result: Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Postal Workers Association v New Zealand Post Ltd
10 Sep 2007, R Arthur, AA 280/07, (9 pages)
DISPUTE - Interpretation of provision regarding allowance for posties who used own vehicles get to start point or other parts of round - Bicycles used for deliveries - Vehicle user agreement (“VUA”) identified three elements of travel for which allowance available, distance between branch and start of round, distance between sections as part of round, and up to end point of round as determined by respondent - End point not always branch began day at - Whether VUA correctly reflected collective employment agreement, which provided for allowance when vehicle used “for New Zealand Post business” - Applicant sought declaration allowance equivalent to return journey to branch payable to posties when distance to branch greater than distance to their home - Claimed during return journey vehicle remained in use for respondent’s business and remained at least partly in use until mail bags and bicycle secured as required by respondent - Respondent contended working day ended when postie reached end point of round - Question was whether vehicle in use for respondent’s business, not whether postie themselves on respondent’s business at time vehicle in use - Business taken to mean “work to be done or matters to be attended to” for purposes of respondent - Did not extend to every task or activity done by postie that might benefit respondent, e.g. travel to work - Task of securing gear could not be elevated to level of work, rather fulfilment of obligation to secure property - Use of vehicle to transport bicycle did not make activity one for respondent’s business - Respondent’s business concluded when postie left designated end point - Further allowance not payable
Result: Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Rasmussen v Medlab Central Ltd
28 Sep 2007, J Crichton, WA 133/07, (12 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - DISPUTE - Applicant sought compliance with collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Alleged incorrectly classified as medical laboratory assistant instead of medical laboratory scientist - Submitted CEA required she be paid as scientist as she had qualifications required by scientist coverage clause, notwithstanding fact originally appointed as assistant and irrespective of work actually performed - Respondent argued nothing prevented it from remunerating employees based on work performed and applicant’s work fell within terms of assistant - On evidence, applicant performing work of scientist and covered by scientist clause in CEA - Applicant entitled to declaration she be paid as medical laboratory scientist, entitled to back pay from date she met all qualifications for role - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent alleged proceedings begun more than six years after cause of action arose - Argument made out, however, applicant only met qualifications required by CEA for previous two years and limited her claim accordingly, so claim able to proceed - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant’s allegation failure to recognise her as scientist breached terms fair and reasonable treatment already dealt with by application of CEA - Additional claim of disparity of treatment - Scientist hours available on other shifts but applicant unable to change shifts due to family commitments - Considered respondent should have reassigned scientist hours to her shifts as appeared to have done for other employee - Authority accepted other employee in “personal to holder” situation - No breach of contract or fair and proper treatment requiring compensation for non-economic loss - Medical laboratory scientist
Result: Application granted in part ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd v The Pulp and Papar Industry Council of Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union Inc
18 Oct 2007, R Arthur, AA 331/07, (17 pages)
DISPUTE - Employer sought declarations regarding validity of proposal to require employees to conduct additional testing - Union opposed plan, in part because would cause net loss of jobs - Also submitted testing substantial change of duties and required renegotiation of wage rates - Union also sought finding employer did not properly consult over proposals - Interpretation of redundancy provision in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Proposed testing not a substantial change of duties - Lawful and reasonable instructions - Authority concluded employer entitled to ask operators to perform additional testing without renegotiating pay rates and operators could be asked to undertake training for that purpose - Employer met obligations of consultation - Due to voluntary redundancies not required to use recently developed selection criteria - Selection criteria for compulsory redundancy within CEA but did not oust term regarding selection for voluntary redundancy or transfers
Result: Questions answered in favour of employer ; Costs reserved
Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd
1 Oct 2007, A Dumbleton, AA 301/07, (10 pages)
DISPUTE - Whether applicant’s consent required before respondent changed shift work rosters - Respondent’s discontent with present 6/3 rosters expressly noted in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Respondent subsequently proposed new 5/2 roster as part of “in-house solution” agreed with other unions to avoid outsourcing work - Applicant did not agree to change CEA to conform with solution - Sought declaration respondent did not have contractual power to change roster in circumstances - Contended changes could not be shown to be for purpose of meeting “needs of the service” as required by CEA - Respondent gave applicant required notice and endeavoured to consult - CEA provided respondent could revert to standard 5/2 shift pattern if no agreement reached - Reversion to standard shirt provision not subject to “needs of the service” qualification - Respondent had contractual power to change roster in absence of agreement with applicant provided it consulted after giving of notice of change - Obiter comments on “needs of the service”
Result: Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
