| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 23/03 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2003 |
| Determination date | 28 February 2003 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | R Crotty ; C Parkin |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Kim-Walker v Museum Hotel Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER - Mediated settlement provided that Labour Inspector to determine quantum of holiday pay owing - Inspector included statutory holiday pay in calculations - Interpretation of settlement - Respondent refused to pay stating that only annual holidays to be determined by Inspector - Respondent's interpretation invited potentially absurd result - Prevented applicant from claiming for payment to which she was entitled - Inspector authorised to determine statutory pay under terms of settlement - Respondent ordered to pay applicant sums calculated by inspector - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Decisions of public officials not ordinarily beyond scrutiny of Courts - Clear under s149(3)(b) Employment Relations Act 2000 that terms of settlement not appealable or reviewable before Court or Authority - Respondent bound by inspector's determination even if he went beyond bounds of his role - No grounds for challenge even if inspector wrong in calculations |
| Result | Application granted ; Compliance ordered ; Costs in favour of applicant ($400) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Statutes | ERA s140(6);ERA s149;ERA s149(3)(b);ERA s234(4) |
| Cases Cited | Whaanga v Cityline (New Zealand) Ltd [2001] ERNZ 222;Wilson v Serco Group (NZ) Ltd [1992] 2 ERNZ 133 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |