| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant alleged disadvantaged when respondent reneged on agreement resolving earlier personal grievance - Alternatively, sought compliance with agreement - Respondent claimed no agreement reached - Original grievance related to application of lock on" provisions in collective employment agreement ("CEA") - Parties construed settlement discussions quite differently - Discussions could not be elevated to binding agreement - Also differences in parties' approach to potential for any resolution to set precedent or result in further grievances - Respondent sought assurance from pilots' association settlement with applicant would not lead to personal grievances from other pilots - Task probably unrealistic as association could not give promises on wider issue respondent had in mind - Respondent did not question applicant's genuinely-made representations concerns addressed - Left applicant with understanding resolution reached - Respondent should have acted promptly to address or correct impression applicant conveyed in subsequent letter - However, not appropriate to invoke this failure to impose agreement and would have potential to cut across operation of CEA to unacceptable extent - Parties' differences in approach and understanding too fundamental to allow for conclusion any meeting of the minds - No agreement to order compliance with - Personal grievance not made out - Authority did not address original personal grievance or dispute that crystallised after alleged settlement - Raised potentially complex issues and adjournment for preparation would have been necessary if Authority were to incorporate matters into present investigation - Authority commented original grievances not well-formulated in terms of s103 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Doubted original claim for bypass pay correctly described as grievance - Recommended mediation - Pilot" |