| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 153/06 |
| Hearing date | 14 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 10 November 2006 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | T Kennedy ; R Searle |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Fletcher v Chief Executive, Statistics New Zealand |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent not properly recognising role as union delegate when carried out salary and performance review, and when decided eligibility for key staff allowances" ("KSA") - Applicant claimed union activities came under expired collective employment agreement ("CEA") - Disingenuous for respondent to suggest CEA unenforceable - Even if technically correct that CEA expired, argument ignored fact applicant not discouraged from undertaking delegate role or advised it did not apply - In evidence respondent did not argue relationship did not apply, instead said delegate duties taken into account - In year of review applicant had spent approximately 39 percent of his time on union activities - Respondent accepted union duties should be given equal weighting with other duties - Applicant unsuccessfully appealed review which gave him overall "meets standards" performance rating and $2,500 pay increase - Review considered proper weight given to union involvement - Authority satisfied review carried out fairly - Performance assessment a matter for employer and unless evidence assessment carried out unfairly Authority could not substitute its view for employer's - Respondent followed proper process and came to justifiable conclusion applicant remunerated at appropriate level - Respondent made one-off KSA payments to retain staff - Applicant did not receive KSA but believed fitted eligibility criteria - Discussion with manager led him to believe union activities not considered - Applicant's remuneration set out in employment agreement - Nothing in it which required payment of KSA and payment was at respondent's discretion - Criteria developed by respondent not unreasonable and no evidence unfairly applied or that applicant unfairly discriminated against - No unjustified disadvantage - Commented events outlined by applicant caused him good deal of personal stress - Authority had no doubt respondent and union took advantage of applicant's willingness to contribute time and energy to relationship between them - Strongly recommended respondent and union review and clarify mutual understanding of role of delegates and value of contributions to ensure situation did not recur - Length of service before alleged disadvantage 18 years - Adviser" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 153_06.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |