| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 527 |
| Determination date | 13 December 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | A-M McInally ; P Diver |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Chubb New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Matter determined on papers - Applicant claimed all employees employed for ten but not 15 years when parties’ CEA came into force entitled to one week additional annual leave – Respondent claimed CEA clause only applied to employees approaching ten years’ service and was not backdated provision for employees who had already attained ten years service – Respondent’s human resources director (“P”) claimed if employee completed ten years’ service before provision for additional annual leave in place employee not entitled to receive extra leave retrospectively – Authority found words of CEA clause clear and unambiguous – Found however Authority not prevented from examining surrounding circumstances – Respondent claimed Authority needed to consider prior negotiation, subsequent parties’ conduct and whether sub-clause made business sense – Applicant claimed initially sought additional annual leave for employees who had completed six years’ service - P claimed during negotiations respondent counter-offered with proposal that employees who reached ten year anniversary would received one additional annual leave – P claimed respondent intended that extra leave would be additional incentive to help retain employees but clause was not intended to apply to employees who had already reached ten year anniversary – Found terms of settlement did not state whether entitlement excluded employees who had already been employed for ten years – Found respondent’s affidavit evidence did not accord with parties’ intention in terms of settlement – Found dates that employees’ claims were raised was not indicative applicant accepted some employees excluded from entitlement – Respondent claimed if entitlement included employees who had already completed ten years’ service, would allow employees to “double-dip” and not business common sense – Found previously employees entitled to additional annual leave when completed six years’ service under previous CEA but entitlement ended after current CEA came into force - Found respondent had made net saving of 3 weeks’ holiday payment and made good business sense for respondent – Found employees who had completed ten years’ employment but were yet to complete 15 years’ employment when current CEA came into force were entitled to additional week’s annual leave - Question answered in favour of applicant |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of The Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Hansells (NZ) Ltd v Ma [2007] ERNZ 637;NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union v Amcor Packaging (New Zealand) Ltd [2011] NZEMPC 135;New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union & Ors v The New Zealand Fire Service Commission [2011] NZEMPC 149;NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc V Silver Fern Farms Ltd (formerly PPCS Ltd) [2009] ERNZ 149;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005;Pyne Gould Guinness Ltd v Montgomery Watson (NZ) Ltd [2001] NZAR 789;Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc [2010] ERNZ 317;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_527.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |