| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 365/05 |
| Hearing date | 9 Aug 2005 |
| Determination date | 16 September 2005 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | P Gillespie ; C Murphy |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gillespie v Tertiary Education Commission |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Respondent moved away from single salary package and adopted policy recognising total remuneration (TR") - Applicant alleged was disadvantaged when his TR compared to TR of peer group - Prior to implementation of TR respondent's contribution to government superannuation fund ("GSF") not factored into salary package and payment to GSF had been over and above salary - Alleged amount paid to GSF created difference between him and his peers which no longer existed - Disadvantage grievances arose out of employment activity and related to physical conditions of employment, environment work was carried out in, amenities and facilities available, payments, and matters of that kind - Applicant did not specifically consent to change in remuneration policy but employment agreement provided for respondent to review remuneration policy and decide upon policies - Whether adequate consultation with applicant - Sufficient information available to enable applicant to make intelligent and useful responses to draft policy - Other than regular increases to base salary no other conditions of applicant's employment affected by implementation of policy - No disadvantage - Skills advisor" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b);Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Sears [1995] 1 ERNZ 627;Matthes v NZ Post Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 994;Wellington Area Health Board v Wellington Hotel etc IUOW [1992] 2 ERNZ 466 ; [1992] 3 NZLR 658;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air NZ Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 671 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 365_05.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |