| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Christchurch 203 |
| Hearing date | 22 Oct 2014 |
| Determination date | 08 December 2014 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | P Churchman ; T Cleary |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Ltd v Silver Fern Farms Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Parties disputed whether respondent's employees entitled to redundancy compensation under collective employment agreement (CEA") - Meatworkers - Seasonal employment - Employees not called up to work at plant at beginning of season - Some workers called up to different plant - Whether employees not redundant because still on seasonal lay-off - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's breach of CEA - Whether respondent required to consult applicant about decision not to open plant for new season" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;DISPUTE: Laying off of employees at end of one season and re-engagement at beginning of next season constituted usual seasonal employment for seasonal employees under CEA. Usual seasonal employment not available to seasonal employees over new season because respondent did not need to conduct processing at plant. Employees' usual seasonal employment unavailable because positions superfluous to respondent's needs. Employees redundant in terms of CEA. Exception to employees being redundant when on seasonal lay-off intended to prevent respondent having to pay redundancy compensation at end of each season. Seasonal lay-off could not be extended to cover situation where next season did not occur. CEA did not state redundancy compensation would not apply if redundancy due to climatic or market conditions. Employees entitled to redundancy compensation under CEA. Question answered in favour of applicant. Leave reserved for parties to return to Authority for assistance in determining outstanding matters.;PENALTY: Clause in CEA requiring consultation with applicant less clear that respondent's proposal to not operate plant amounted to redundancy proposal. No penalty. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s135(1)(a);Holidays Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL);New Zealand Meat Workers' Union Inc v Alliance Group Ltd [2006] ERNZ 664 (EmpC);Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc [2010] NZCA 317, [2010] ERNZ 317;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5, [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_203.pdf [pdf 212 KB] |