| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 42 |
| Hearing date | 22 Sep 2011 |
| Determination date | 31 January 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | A-M McInally ; E Butcher, S Grainger |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Campbell and Anor v NZ Document Exhcange Ltd |
| Other Parties | Vercoe |
| Summary | DISPUTE – ARREARS OF WAGES – Interpretation of parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) – Whether applicants should be paid at higher hourly rate referred to in EA appendix issued to other employees - Applicants sought arrears of wages - Parties’ EA provided for pay rise if applicant met applicable performance grade - Respondent raised applicants’ pay rate to reflect improved performance – Respondent revised pay grades annually and updated applicable rate in EA’s appendix which set out grading system - Applicants claimed understood were on expert performance grade and would be paid at applicable hourly rate – Applicants discovered were being paid less than current annual expert hourly rate – Respondent claimed EA only entitled applicants to regular review of hourly rate – Respondent claimed grading system did not apply in respondent’s branch where applicants worked and pay rises not linked to particular grade - Respondent did not conduct performance review with second applicant (“V”) in light of grading system - Authority found reasonable for V to assume paid on current annual expert hourly rate – Respondent conducted at least two performance reviews with first applicant (“C”) and C moved to expert hourly rate – Found was no indication from respondent that C’s skills were not at expert grade after performance reviews – Parties disputed whether respondent expressly referred to grading system when pay rise discussed – Found applicants entitled to rely on EAs and expect would be paid at rate no less than expert rate as stated in EA – Found applicants’ EA did not did make geographical exception for respondent’s branch – Found absence of applicants’ signatures on employee change forms confirmed applicants did not agree to rate lower than current annual expert pay rate – Respondent claimed revised copies of EA appendix did not prove different rates were paid to other employees employed after applicants – Found respondent did increase hourly expert rates it paid employees over four year period – Found increased rates applied to all mail room employees with EA with same term even if actual appendix attached to EA was older version and provided for lower rate – Found applicants entitled to difference between what was actually paid and expert rate applicable in each year – Found respondent not entitled to offset payments made to C when C paid above applicable expert rate as payments within respondent’s discretion to pay more than rate set out in EA – Interest payable – COSTS – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Found on balance not necessary to adjust usual daily tariff - Respondent to pay applicant $3,000 contribution towards costs - Mail Sorters |
| Result | Applications granted ; Arrears of wages (quantum to be determined)(first applicant) ; Arrears of wages (quantum to be determined)(second applicant) ; Interest (5%) ; Costs in favour of applicants ($3,000) ; Disbursements in favour of first applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Disbursements in favour of second applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s137;ERA s174;ERA Second Schedule cl11 |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_42.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |