| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 94/06 |
| Hearing date | 28 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 26 June 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | P Cranney ; R Towner |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Maritime Union of New Zealand v Lyttelton Port Company Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Whether clause of collective employment agreement (CEA") concerning performance bonuses correctly interpreted, applied, and operated - No performance bonuses paid in 2005 to those covered by CEA - Whether respondent operated performance based bonus system based on actual financial performance in accordance with relevant clause of CEA - Respondent required to operate performance based bonus system based on actual financial performance - Clause did not specify particular approach or methodology - Matters left to be decided by respondent exercising discretion and following a reasonable and structured process each year - Irrelevant matters should not be taken into account - Bonus payments made in two previous years though deterioration of financial performance - Did not mean respondent obliged to make bonus payment again in 2005 - Fact bonuses paid every year did not create practice or expectation of such payment - Any bonuses paid to employees under individual employment agreements because of different contractual obligations - Respondent's process satisfied requirements of clause - Respondent did not take irrelevant matters into consideration - Decision made not to pay bonus made solely on basis of poor financial performance - Order prohibiting publication of parts of specified paper to remuneration committee (specific parts prohibited set out in determination)" |
| Result | Dispute answered in favour of respondent ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10(1) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 94_06.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |