| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 210 |
| Hearing date | 14 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 14 June 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | A McInally ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Simpson v Tenix Alliance New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of parties’ employment agreement (“IEA”) – Applicant claimed respondent attempted to assign applicant to new position (“X”) in breach of parties’ IEA - Authority found applicant current position had unique job title and applicant’s position and X not interchangeable - Found although applicant carried out X duties occasionally, respondent not entitled to assign applicant to X position - Found breach of IEA for respondent to require applicant to be assigned to X position - Question answered in favour of applicant - Faultman |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as faultman. Applicant claimed respondent attempted to assign applicant to new position (“X”) when employed to perform work in accordance with parties’ employment agreement (“IEA”). Applicant claimed terms of employment as set out in letter issued by employer prevailed over terms of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”). Respondent replaced applicant’s previous employer (“S”). S had issued applicant with letter setting out terms of employment and stated prevailed over parties’ CEA in force at time. Applicant claimed current position required higher level of skills and qualifications than X and meant applicant worked autonomously.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Applicant position had unique job title and applicant’s position and X not interchangeable. No evidence terms of applicant’s employment changed after respondent replaced S. Applicant had continued working in faultman position for respondent for last 7 years although position not expressly included in parties’ CEA. Terms of employment as set out in letter prevailed over parties’ CEA. Although applicant carried out X duties occasionally, respondent not entitled to assign applicant to X position. Breach of IEA for respondent to require applicant to be assigned to X position. Question answered in favour of applicant. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s61;ERA s61(b) |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of NZ Inc [2005] ERNZ 984;Holloway v Waikato & King Country Press Ltd [2000] 2 ERNZ 86;Lowe Walker Paeroa Ltd v Bennett [1998] 2 ERNZ 558;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_210.pdf [pdf 167 KB] |