| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 439/05 |
| Hearing date | 3 Nov 2005 |
| Determination date | 07 November 2005 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | M Crotty ; R Towner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wood v Television New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Respondent offered applicant reduced salary in reliance on fixed term employment agreement - Whether fixed term effective - Fixed term from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 - Employment agreement expressed reasons for fixed term were that applicant had been employed by respondent primarily to host particular programme (or any replacement programme) and that when she finished on air in that role it was appropriate that her employment with respondent end - Reasons stated were not reasons at all - Meaningful reasons according to purpose were required - Seemed that applicant appreciated tenure of employment limited only by continued success of particular programme - Authority found that before signing employment agreement applicant was not advised of reasons why employment was to end on 31 December 2005 - Fixed term provision did not comply with s66(4)(b) Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") - Employment relationship remained valid but applicant entitled to elect to treat purported fixed term to be ineffective under s66(6) ERA - Applicant's employment indefinite - Salary provision in employment agreement stated "for period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 a salary of $450,000 gross taxable" - Salary provision not rendered ineffective by findings regarding fixed term - Salary provision would expire on 31 December 2005 in context of continuing employment - Incumbent on parties to attempt to reach agreement for new salary in same manner as conventional pay review - Salary could not be imposed on applicant and had to be attained by agreement - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed respondent's ultimatum that fixed term employment would expire if she did not accept reduced salary constituted unjustifiable action - Authority not prepared to find respondent's actions should be characterised as "unjustifiable" but were misguided - No unjustified disadvantage - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for breach of duty of good faith - Respondent did not act in good faith because it conveyed inaccurate impression to applicant about top salary respondent's board had authorised - Authority not persuaded that circumstances required imposition of penalty - Interviewer/host/anchor/presenter" |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Applications dismissed (personal grievance and penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 s27;ERA s66;ERA s66(2);ERA s66(4);ERA s66(6) |
| Cases Cited | Norske Skog Tasman Ltd v Clarke [2004] 1 ERNZ 127 ; [2004] 3 NZLR 323;Saint Kentigern Teachers Ass Inc v Saint Kentigern Trust Board unreported, Colgan J, 26 October 2005, AC 63/05 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 439_05.pdf [pdf 150 KB] |