| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 165 |
| Determination date | 03 May 2013 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | G Mayes ; K Burson |
| Parties | Baird v Auckland Council |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed respondent’s ability to change motor vehicle policy under applicant’s employment agreement – Applicant entitled to work vehicle for commuting purposes – Whether applicant entitled to compensation for policy change –Whether respondent estopped from changing applicant’s entitlement to work vehicle - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to consult applicant regarding policy change – Respondent issued applicant notice of cancellation - Client services officer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;DISPUTE: No ongoing right to work vehicle. Respondent entitled to change policy. No requirement respondent compensate applicant however respondent required to consult applicant. No estoppel. Questions answered in favour of respondent.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Unilateral cancelation of motor vehicle policy not fair or reasonable. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to consult applicant regarding policy change. REMEDIES: Remedies reserved by joint request of parties. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent; Application granted (unjustified disadvantage); Remedies reserved; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [2011] NZEmpC 149;Communication and Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecom New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5;Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc [2010] NZCA 317 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_165.pdf [pdf 303 KB] |