| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2018] NZERA Auckland 47 |
| Determination date | 12 February 2018 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | R Murdoch (in person) ; P Elder |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Murdoch v Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed how terms of Collective Agreement (“CA”) were to be interpreted and applied – Applicant argued that redundancy compensation payment should include retirement payments – Respondent submitted that it had correctly interpreted terms of CA correctly |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND – DISPUTE: Respondent initiated the end of employment relationship. Only provisions of the redundancy clause applied, not the retirement clause. Entitlement based on annual salary rate referred to in clause 38(e)(i) the CA. Interpretation of clause 11 contemplated service increments being included in the salary rate of the employee. Payments made as employers superannuation contributions were not intended to be included as part of annual salary rate. Respondent should have included the value of applicant’s service increments in redundancy payment calculations. Respondent to include the value of applicants service increments in the annual salary rate used to calculate redundancy compensation payment made to him. |
| Result | Questions answered ; Orders made ; Interest payable (5%) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl11(1) ; ERA s129(2) ; Judicature Act 1908 ; Judicature (Prescribed Rate of Interest) Order 2011; Money Claims Act 2016 |
| Cases Cited | AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2017] NZSC 135 ; Firm PI Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd t/a Zurich NZ [2014] NZSC 147 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2018_NZERA_Auckland_47.pdf [pdf 136 KB] |