| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 446 |
| Hearing date | 24 Aug 2012 |
| Determination date | 10 December 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | L Yukich ; D France |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Electrical Union 2001 Ltd v Mighty River Power Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed interpretation of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Authority found parties did not agree as to how entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave would be met and CEA did not address how ‘week’ more than seven days would be accommodated into four weeks’ annual leave entitlement – Found in absence of clause in CEA expressly addressing how entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave to be met, respondent’s averaging approach took appropriate account of variation of hours worked in week by employees and acceptable method of calculating entitlement – Found respondent had interpreted and applied CEA correctly when deducting leave from employees’ annual leave entitlements – Questions answered in favour of respondent |
| Abstract | Parties disputed interpretation of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) relating to annual leave entitlements for shift workers. Respondent’s employees employed on shift basis and observed 12 week roster cycle where employees worked five eight hours shifts for four weeks before working four 12 hour shifts for eight weeks. Respondent averaged shift workers’ hours to 42 hours per week to calculate annual leave entitlements. When leave taken by shift employee respondent made deductions from employee’s leave entitlement at either eight or 12 hours per day depending on what shift employee working when applied for leave. Applicant claimed respondent’s averaging approach did not comply with CEA. Applicant claimed on correct interpretation of parties’ CEA, week for purposes of entitlements to leave during first shift meant five eight hour days and week during second shift meant four 12 hour days. Applicant claimed therefore if leave taken during first shift then quarter of one week’s leave should be deducted from employee’s entitlement but if leave taken during second shift then fifth of one week’s leave should be deducted from employee’s entitlement. Applicant claimed respondent’s averaging approach meant shift workers did not receive their full annual leave entitlement. Respondent claimed Holidays Act 2003 did not prevent annual leave entitlements being accrued in hours rather than days or weeks.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Authority noted Holidays Act 2003 does not define ‘week’ for purposes of calculating annual leave entitlements. CEA attempted to define ‘week’ with reference to shifts and ‘week’ of leave varied depending on what shift employee working at time sought leave, but question was whether CEA definitions of ‘week’ amounted to agreement as to how employees' entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave would be met. Parties did not agree as to how entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave would be met and CEA did not address did not agree how ‘week’ more than seven days would be accommodated into four weeks’ annual leave entitlement. In absence of clause in CEA expressly addressing how entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave to be met, respondent’s averaging approach took appropriate account of variation of hours worked in week and acceptable method of calculating entitlement. Respondent had interpreted and applied CEA correctly when deducted leave from employees’ annual leave entitlements. Questions answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 s17 |
| Cases Cited | Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc [2011] NZEmpC 39;Mars New Zealand Ltd v Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union Inc unreported, P Stapp, 4 August 2010, WA 131/10 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_446.pdf [pdf 237 KB] |