| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 31 |
| Hearing date | 15 Apr 2014 ; 24 Feb 2015 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 06 March 2015 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | D King ; P Hall |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Thornley and Brown v Marlborough Boys' College Board of Trustees |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicants sought compliance with collective employment agreement (CEA") - Applicants sought arrears of wages - Whether management salary units permanent or fixed term - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Whether respondent breached CEA when management units removed from applicants - GOOD FAITH - Whether respondent acted in bad faith by removing management units from applicants - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Whether grievances raised within 90 days - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicants claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by removal of management units - Teachers" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;COMPLIANCE ORDER - ARREARS OF WAGES: If management units fixed term, CEA not complied with as no period of time or particular assignments specified. Not necessary for time or assignment to be specified for unit to be for valid fixed term. Fact no time or assignment specified meant no way for applicants to know when management units to cease. Management units permanent in absence of specified trigger point. Applicants entitled to payment of employer superannuation contributions paid on permanent management units. Compliance ordered. Respondent to pay applicants arrears of wages, quantum to be determined. Interest payable. Applicants able to seek Authority determination if unable to agree quantum of employer superannuation entitlements with respondent.;BREACH OF CONTRACT: Review of way units allocated did not amount to reorganisation of College. Overall purpose of relevant clauses in CEA to set out process when surplus staffing or merger situation occurred. Such situation not present when unit review occurred. Surplus staffing and merger provisions of CEA not relevant to unit review. No breach of surplus staffing and merger provisions.;GOOD FAITH: No intent to target applicants for reasons of bad faith. Reason given at time of unit review genuine motivation for review. Reasons for units being removed from applicants genuinely intended.;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Reference to letter raising second applicant's grievance in letter raising first applicant's grievance sufficiently particularised to enable respondent to understand first applicant's concerns. Grievances raised within 90 days.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Applicants disadvantaged by not having proper opportunity to comment on proposed removal of management units by way of process in which applicants informed of rationales for proposed removal and proposed recipients of units. Applicants unjustifiably disadvantaged by flawed consultation process. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate for each applicant. |
| Result | Applications granted (compliance order)(arrears of wages)(raising personal grievance)(unjustified disadvantage) ; Compliance ordered ; Arrears of wages (quantum to be determined) ; Interest (5%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000)(first applicant)($5,000)(second applicant) ; Applications dismissed (good faith)(breach of contract) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s131;ERA s137(1)(a)(i);ERA s142;ERA Second Schedule cl11;Judicature Act 1908 s87;Judicature (Prescribed Rate of Interest) Order 2011 r4 |
| Cases Cited | Communication & Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecom New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 25 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_31.pdf [pdf 300 KB] |