| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 215 |
| Hearing date | 20 Dec 2011 - 21 Dec 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 22 June 2012 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Ballara ; S Wilson, R Rendle |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sharma & Anor v Veolia Transport Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – COMPLIANCE ORDER - Interpretation of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Applicants claimed respondent’s refusal to pay first applicant (S") additional paid sick leave breached parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) and sought compliance with parties’ settlement agreement (“SA”) - Authority found applicant not entitled to unlimited sick leave - Found respondent acted in good faith when declined S’s sick leave applications - Question answered in favour of respondent - No breach of parties’ SA - Engine Driver" |
| Abstract | First applicant (“S”) employed as engine driver. Applicants claimed respondent’s refusal to pay S additional paid sick leave breached parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”). Applicants sought compliance with parties’ settlement agreement (“SA”). S had non-work accident. Respondent declined S’s requests for additional sick leave after S exhausted sick leave allowance. Parties’ CEA stated when employee had exhausted sick leave entitlement, respondent could agree to additional sick leave. CEA stated favourable consideration would be given in cases of serious illness. Parties’ SA stated respondent withdrew guidelines previously issued by respondent for granting sick leave, additional sick leave would be granted on case-by-case basis and employees not entitled to unlimited sick leave. Application of guidelines and CEA unclear.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE – COMPLIANCE ORDER: Parties agreed respondent could not apply guidelines in entirety when considered whether further sick leave should be granted. Withdrawal of guidelines did not prevent respondent from taking S’s annual leave balance into account when considered S’s application for additional sick leave. Applicant chose to top up payments with annual leave entitlement. Applicant not entitled to unlimited sick leave. Respondent did not have serious illness requiring favourable consideration. Respondent acted in good faith when declined S’s applications. Question answered in favour of respondent. No breach of parties’ SA. |
| Result | Applications declined ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 s28A;Holidays Act 2003 s39;Holidays Act 2003 s61 |
| Cases Cited | Bates v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1996] 1 ERNZ 657;Dorset v Chemcolour Industries (NZ) Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 8 April 2004, AA 117/04;NZ (with exceptions) Electrical IUOW v Otago Electric Power Board [1991] 2 ERNZ 133;Gwynn v A Professional Conduct Committee of Nursing Council of New Zealand unreported, MacKenzie J, 26 October 2011, CIV-2011-485-1464;Kelcold Ltd v O’Brien [1999] 2 ERNZ 70 ; [1999] 3 NZLR 261;United Food IUOW v Talley [1992] 1 ERNZ 756 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_215.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |