| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 39/07 |
| Hearing date | 31 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 13 March 2007 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | P Cranney ; A Lubbe |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Gilmour & Ors v ANZ National Bank Ltd |
| Other Parties | White & Nicholas |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicants alleged breach of duty when respondent refused to increase salaries - Respondent met requirement to conduct annual market review of remuneration, albeit applicants disappointed that, in respondent's view, review showed them to be over-remunerated - No obligation to increase pay - No evidence respondent acted adverse to duty of good faith - Internal relativities important when setting remuneration and inconsistencies needed to be addressed at some point - No evidence applicant not paid in accordance with market rates - Respondent did not attempt to reduce remuneration and no legitimate expectation of future increases - Respondent conceded putting cap on applicants' remuneration disadvantaged them, however Authority accepted substantively justified - Authority did not accept applicants' allegation positions down graded - Did not suffer loss of status either - Remained on same grade - Respondent's actions justified except in relation to consultation - Consulted union generally but not in detail - No consultation with applicants until after it determined what it wanted to do about review - No obligation on respondent to negotiate or reach agreement with applicants over way would be remunerated in future - However duty of good faith applied as proposal impacted on employees - Issue could not be described as urgent - Fair and reasonable employer would have consulted applicants before deciding to implement new approach to remuneration - Simply informing union intended to conduct review insufficient - Broad outcome for applicants most likely not any different with consultation - Bank foresaw effect yet chose not to minimise it with consultation and support - Sense of shock could have considerably assuaged by consultation - Breach of good faith - Compensation appropriate - Personal managers |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000)(each applicant) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(4)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland City Council v The New Zealand Public Service Association and Anor [2003] 2 ERNZ 386 ; [2004] 2 NZLR 10 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 39_07.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |