| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 141 |
| Determination date | 16 November 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Cranney ; R Towner |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Bartlett v Terranova Homes and Care Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Authority found matter not frivolous and vexatious – Found whether Equal Pay Act 1972 applied given applicant’s pay arrangements and high number of female employees compared to number of male employees employed by respondent important question of law likely to arise – Found limited information about urgency and public interest in removing matter – Found applicant’s union party in matter already before EC rather than applicant – Found no proceeding already before EC involving same parties – Matter removed to EC – Caregiver |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as caregiver. Applicant sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important question of law likely to arise, matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed, and EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or substantially similar issues. Applicant claimed paid less than male employees with same, or substantially similar, skills, responsibility and service performing work under the same, or substantially similar, conditions with the same, or substantially similar, degrees of effort. Applicant claimed not receiving equal pay within meaning of Equal Pay Act 1972 (“EPA”) and respondent not acting as good employer. Respondent claimed applicant’s claims frivolous and vexatious. Respondent employed six male caregivers out of 117 caregivers and claimed no female employee paid less than rate would be paid to male employees upon assessment criteria.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Matter not frivolous and vexatious as sufficient substantive comment on issues to suggest number of arguable issues in need of hearing. Issue concerned assessment of competence as caregiver given possible basis for comparison between male and female pay and led to questions of law likely to arise under EPA and good employer obligation under Schedule 1B Employment Relations Act 2000. Public interest in matter as would relate to pay setting in industry generally having regard to good employer obligation. Whether EPA applied given applicant’s pay arrangements and high number of female employees compared to number of male employees employed by respondent important question of law likely to arise. Limited information about urgency and public interest in removing matter. Applicant’s union party in matter already before EC rather than applicant. No proceeding already before EC involving same parties. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Equal Pay Act 1972;Equal Pay Act 1972 s3(1)(b);ERA;ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA Schedule 1B |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_141.pdf [pdf 151 KB] |