| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 80 |
| Hearing date | 8 Jul 2011 |
| Determination date | 02 May 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | A McInally ; G Williams |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing union Inc v Silver Fern Farms Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Parties disputed whether employees should receive additional payment under CEA dirty work clause when employees worked with respondent soot blowing boilers – Applicant party to multi-union CEA alongside three other unions with respondent – CEA included dirty work clause stating employees who worked in particular areas, including with boilers, should be paid extra wages (“clause”) – Clause drafted 50 years ago and no evidence of negotiation or deliberate amendment to clause – Clause stated employees required to clean boilers would be paid extra wages but no additional payment would be made where soot blowing process automatic – Respondent claimed ‘automatic’ referred to what was concerned automatic at time clause drafted - Employee (“M”) described work as not extremely dirty but claimed employee exposed to heat, noise and dust – M accepted use of safety equipment such as face masks not requirement but common practice – Respondent claimed additional payment only paid when boilers were shut down and manually cleaned by employee – Applicant claimed clause predated modern boiler systems – Authority found use of ‘automatic’ in clause ambiguous – Found boilers in place at time clause drafted were considered automatic and sootblowing process did not attract additional payment – Found arrangement continued for some time therefore indicated parties’ understanding of clause – Found applicant’s lack of pursuit of issue undermined applicant’s position – Found employees engaged in soot blowing process not entitled to dirty work payment – Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc [2005] ERNZ 984;New Zealand Commercial Travellers and Sales Representatives IUOW v Andrews and Bevan Ltd [1983] ACJ 557;Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: A S T E Te Hau Takitini O Aotearoa v Hampton [2002] 1 ERNZ 491 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_80.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |