| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 407 |
| Hearing date | 26 Sep 2014 |
| Determination date | 07 October 2014 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S Vallinayagam (in person) ; K Burson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Vallinayagam v Auckland Council |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Parties disputed whether applicant entitled to meal allowance - Whether applicant told during interview that would receive meal allowance instead of meal breaks - Customer services representative |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;DISPUTE: Clause in applicant's job description related to meal breaks and did not entitle applicant to meal allowance. Applicant did not qualify for meal allowance under relevant provisions of employment agreement. Employment agreement contained complete agreement provision meaning any representations made to applicant during interview would have no force or effect. Respondent's custom and practice of making meal allowance payment despite no contractual requirement to do so could not influence outcome given lack of ambiguity in operative employment agreements. Question answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |