| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 448/05 |
| Hearing date | 5 Sep 2005 |
| Determination date | 21 November 2005 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | G Pollak ; P Tremewan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | The New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Energex Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant raised concern relating to certain conditions being imposed" on employees upon acceptance of an offer from employer to complete specific training - As part of training, employees agreed to health check, that would be no annual leave during that time, that there would be no overtime paid nor staying away/meal allowances - Also agreed that would be bonded to employment for two years and if resigned in that time would be required to pay part of training costs back - Whether breach of collective agreement - Bonding arrangement not breach of CEA - Entirely reasonable for respondent to make some attempt to protect investment made in specialised training of employees - Employees willingly entered bonding agreements - Substantial financial incentive to employees to undertake training - Not unreasonable or inconsistent with provisions of CEA - Not unreasonable to withhold approval of annual leave for the seven week training period - Employees could be taken to have accepted that overtime provisions of CEA not applicable to circumstances pertaining to training course - Alleged that preventing payment of staying away allowance was inconsistent with s61(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 - The agreement entered into by employees undertaking training could not be viewed as additional terms and conditions - No entitlement to meal allowance - No breach of terms of CEA nor inconsistent with CEA or s61(1) ERA" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Statutes | ERA s61(1);Holidays Act 2003 s18(1);Holidays Act 2003 s18(4) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 448_05.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |