| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 361/06 |
| Hearing date | 11 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 28 November 2006 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Ross (in person) ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Ross v Compass Group New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Whether applicant's bonus payment should have been included in calculation of holiday pay entitlements - Applicant relied on memorandum stating bonus not discretionary and holiday pay entitlement would include bonus - Applicant subsequently entered new employment agreement - Could not rely on earlier memorandum as terms of bonus scheme discretionary and stood outside employment agreement, and because distinction between incentive" and "discretionary" in memorandum expressly overridden by language in new employment agreement - Bonus scheme discretionary - Holidays Act 2003 excluded discretionary payments from definition of gross earnings and ordinary weekly pay - Applicant sought to rely on earlier determination of Authority which found bonus part of gross earnings for purposes of holiday pay - Factual context of Philips v Hauraki Marine Ltd (cited below) distinguishable from present situation - Costs reserved and Authority recorded that significant issue in any consideration of costs would be respondent's reluctance to attend mediation" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003;Holidays Act 2003 s8(1)(c)(i);Holidays Act 2003 s14(b)(i) |
| Cases Cited | Phillips v Hauraki Marine Ltd unreported, M Urlich, 5 April 2006, AA 112/06 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 361_06.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |