| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 70/06 |
| Hearing date | 6 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 04 May 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | L Highfield ; P McBride |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v OCS Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - On two public holidays respondent unilaterally reduced some employees normal hours of work and paid them for actual hours worked instead of hours would normally work - Applicant believed its members enjoyed fixed weekly hours that could not be reduced without agreement - Submitted that on public holidays members entitled to be paid for hours would normally work and receive penal rate for hours actually worked - Applicant's members were originally employed under CEA by respondent's competitor - Following tender process respondent secured cleaning contract - Health Sector's Code of Good Faith required applicant's members to be employed on same terms and conditions - CEA continued to apply and entitled employees required to work public holidays to penal rate for hours worked (which was to equate to a sum no less than what employee would ordinarily have been paid for working the day) - Applicant argued as previous employer paid members for normal working hours and penal rate for hours actually worked respondent required to do same - Respondent challenged value of applicant's witness because of subjective content - Argued that evidence of previous employer acceding to applicant's interpretation after long resistance and around time knew contract lost should be considered in light of actual or potential advantage they gained as respondent's competitor - Respondent claimed employment of staff on public holidays discretionary and consultation not required as hours effected via weekly roster - CEA did not provide for minimum or fixed normal hours of weekly work - CEA required respondent to communicate roster setting out working hours one week in advance and permitted it to vary employees hours - Express provisions of CEA prevailed over belated agreement reached with previous employer, particularly as that agreement was not incorporated into CEA - JURISDICTION - Respondent had questioned Authority's jurisdiction in respect of whether arrears were payable when employees had not brought application for recovery and where there was no evidence of prejudicial impact on applicant itself - Also questioned whether applicant was at all times registered and, if not, did it have standing before Authority - As party to expired and current CEA Union had properly brought employment relationship problem to Authority - Domestics (cleaners) |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s161;Employment Relations Authority Regulations 2000 r5 |
| Cases Cited | G N Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 ; (1990) 3 NZELC 97,985 ; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843;Mabon v Conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand [1998] 2 ERNZ 440 ; [1998] 3 NZLR 513 ; (1998) 5 NZELC 95,834;McLaren v Waikato Regional Council [1993] 1 NZLR 710 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 70_06.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |