| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 135 |
| Hearing date | 13-Mar-15 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2015 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | R Walters ; P Shaw |
| Location | Greymouth |
| Parties | Association of Professional and Executive Employees v West Coast District Health Board |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether Authority had jurisdiction to award damages for breach of settlement agreement - Not s149 agreement - Whether settlement agreement variation to employment agreement or stand-alone agreement - Whether settlement agreement void for uncertainty - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant sought damages for loss incurred by respondent’s breach of remuneration provision in collective agreement - Applicant sought damages for respondent’s breach of mediated settlement agreement - Whether respondent obliged to backdate salary increases resulting from annual salary review - Whether respondent properly applied salary review criteria in relation to four employees - Information technology professionals |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -JURISDICTION: Not impossible to perform both collective agreement and settlement agreement. Settlement agreement not stand-alone agreement. Settlement agreement was agreement to agree and sufficiently certain. Authority had jurisdiction to award damages for breach of settlement agreement.BREACH OF CONTRACT: No inconsistency between collective agreement coming into effect in 2010 and result of salary review being implemented in 2012. Obligations to conduct annual salary review not same as obligation to backdate salary review as if it had been conducted annually. No grounds to imply term backdating salary increase. Respondent failed to apply salary review criteria but even if criteria applied no evidence to suggest three of four employees would have been given higher salary. Remaining employee who would have been given higher salary if criteria applied properly did not seek remedies on this ground. Respondent worked with applicant towards more structured salary review by seeking to agree deliverable of new form. Obligation to agree to exact contents of salary review form uncertain and incapable of being enforced. No obligation to re-do salary reviews where process not agreed upon. Respondent did not act in bad faith when carrying out salary reviews. No damages. |
| Result | Application granted (jurisdiction) ; Application dismissed (breach of contract) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s4 - ERA s3 - ERA s5 - ERA s52 - ERA s53 - ERA s137 - ERA s137(2) - ERA s149 - ERA s159 - ERA s161(1)(a) - ERA s161(1)(b) - ERA s161(1)(n) - ERA Schedule 1A cl4 |
| Cases Cited | BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hasting [1977] 16 ALR 363 (PC);British and Beningtons Ltd v North Western Cachar Tea Co Ltd [1923] AC 48 (HL);Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28;JP Morgan Chase Ban NA v Robert Lewis [2015] NZCA 255, [2015] 3 NZLR 618;Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1 (HL);Progressive Meats Ltd v Pohio [2012] NZEmpC 103;Wellington City Council v Body Corporate 51702 (Wellington) [2002] 3 NZLR 486 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 29 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_135.pdf [pdf 296 KB] |