| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 94A/04 |
| Hearing date | 6 Sep 2004 |
| Determination date | 20 September 2004 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | R Towner ; P Cranney |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Maritime Union of New Zealand (Inc) and Ors |
| Other Parties | Rail and Maritime Transport Union (Inc), NZ Foremen Stevedores Union (Inc) |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Interpretation of collective agreement - Employment of Part Time Relief Pool"(PRPs) - Parties signed memorandum of understanding that included agreement about part time staff - Memorandum provided for number of PRPs and allowed applicant to appoint additional PRPs by specified formula - Whether applicant entitled to replace any PRP worker who left or transferred to full time staff so that number of PRPs did not diminish - Important surrounding circumstance to interpretation of CA was memorandum - Memorandum provided for restriction - Relevant clause did not limit applicant's ability to employ new PRPs to restore size of pool after employees left - Action did not constitute increase in PRP pool - Declaration granted that applicant may restore PRP pool following its depletion from size previously set the application of the formula in the specified clause without again having to apply the formula" |
| Result | Question answered ; Declaration accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s53 |
| Cases Cited | ASTE v Chief Executive of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Lowe Walker Paeroa Ltd v Bennett [1998] 2 ERNZ 558 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |