| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 237 |
| Hearing date | 24 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 29 October 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Churchman ; K Smith |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | New Zealand Meatworkers and Related Trades Union Inc v Alliance Group Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Matter concerned effect of amendment to minimum annual leave entitlement in Holidays Act 2003 on annual leave provisions in parties’ collective employment agreements (“CEA”) – Authority found extent of application of recent Court of Appeal statement when faced with express provision in CEA arguably leaving no room for interpretation important question of law likely to arise – Found removal of matter in public interest as many employees covered by similar clauses and entitled to clarification – Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Parties sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important question of law likely to arise and matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed. Parties disputed effect of amendment to minimum annual leave entitlement in Holidays Act 2003 on annual leave provisions in parties’ collective employment agreements (“CEA”). Parties claimed outcome would affect numerous employees.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Recent litigation on effect of amendment to minimum annual leave entitlement in Holidays Act 2003 generally involved employment agreements providing annual leave entitlement along with additional entitlement for long serving employees. Court of Appeal had stated recently critical question was whether parties’ agreed purpose was to provide long serving employees with special benefit. Subtle difference in present case as each category of employee in CEA granted specified amount of leave and no reference to additional leave. Application of recent Court of Appeal statement when faced with express provision in CEA arguably leaving no room for interpretation important question of law likely to arise. Removal of matter in public interest as many employees covered by similar clauses and entitled to clarification. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);Holidays Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corp Ltd [2008] ERNZ 584;Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota v Cerebos Gregg’s Ltd (2012) 9 NZELR 226;Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart (No 2) [2008] ERNZ 249 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_237.pdf [pdf 141 KB] |