| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 111/06 |
| Hearing date | 27 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 07 August 2006 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | Michael Leggat ; Karen Spackman |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Long v New Zealand Lotteries Commission |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant disagreed with calculation of annual leave and long service leave entitlements - Applicant worked shift pattern equivalent to 3.5 days per week - Had two employment agreements while employed that referred to annual leave in weeks - However, various letters from respondent expressed entitlement in days e.g. 3 weeks (15 working days)" - Respondent calculated annual leave based on applicant's working week - Equated to 10.5 days and 14 days depending on applicable agreement - Applicant claimed entitled to 15 or 20 days respectively, based on letters and calculation of pro rata long service entitlement, which had not taken shift pattern into account - Respondent relied upon use of "week" in legislation and claimed reference to days a drafting error - Submitted paying out long service leave discretionary - Respondent's position not assisted by terms put in writing - Reasonable to expect large, resourced organisation such as respondent could get matters correct - Led applicant to believe entitled to 15 and 20 days leave - However, respondent's approach consistent with Holidays Act 2003 - Employment agreements applied over letters - Applicant not entitled to further leave - Payment of long service leave discretionary - Shift supervisor" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 1981;Holidays Act 2003 s17(1) |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 111_06.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |