| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 50/06 |
| Hearing date | 20 Dec 2005 |
| Determination date | 05 April 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | T Wilton ; K Smith |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | New Zealand Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc and Ors v Alliance Group Ltd |
| Other Parties | Ross, Leen, McLeod, Stuart, Halkett, Walsh, Meikle, Hedges, Banks |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Interpretation of collective employment agreement (CEA") - Whether second applicants had right to be paid some of their wages in cash rather than all wages being paid in accordance with industry practice of direct crediting - Relevant provision stated "All wages shall be paid in accordance with the practice existing in the industry, including direct crediting with the consent of the worker concerned and during working hours" - Applicant submitted statutory right of employees to be paid money meant clear and unambiguous language required to remove that right, and that CEA did not do this - Applicant also relied on other subclauses of relevant provision to indicate parties contemplated continuing right to be paid cash - Respondent submitted industry practice was to pay wages by direct credit and that first part of clause was expressed in mandatory terms - Respondent claimed possibility of some workers being paid other than in accordance with industry practice could not have been intended because of administrative difficulties - Issue was effect of second part of sentence on first part - Second part could provide example of industry practice, or it could qualify or modify first part - If second part of sentence was to modify or qualify first part it was more likely "however" or "provided" would have been used instead of "including" - Although some wording of other subclauses did not sit easily with direct crediting it did not indicate parties contemplated continuing right to be paid cash - Second part did not qualify or modify first part of sentence except to extent that "with the consent of the worker concerned" recognised that direct crediting required something from worker for wages to be paid - Consent not obtained from workers by virtue of ratification of CEA - Worker consented to payment by direct credit by providing account details to respondent - Nothing in clause allowed consent to be conditional, withdrawn or varied - Worker unable to insist on mixture of payment by direct credit and cash, this interpretation would be inconsistent with emphasis on requirement all wages be paid in accordance with industry practice of direct crediting - Auckland Local Authorities IUOW (cited below) distinguished - Correct interpretation of clause was that all wages should be paid in accordance with industry practice of direct crediting and workers consented to manner of payment when they provided their account details - Respondent acted appropriately by providing second applicants with opportunity to discuss issue before it stopped partial payment of wages in cash" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of the respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Arms Act 1983;Wages Protection Act 1983 s6(2);Wages Protection Act 1983 s7;Wages Protection Act 1983 s9;Wages Protection Act 1983 s16 |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini O Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Auckland Local Authorities Officers IUOW v Gisborne City Council [1988] NZILR 962 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 50_06.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |