| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 29/07 |
| Hearing date | 7 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 27 March 2007 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | D Felming ; S Knowles |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | National Distribution Union v Arthur Barnett Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Interpretation of overtime provision in collective employment agreement (CEA") - Whether overtime triggered on daily or weekly basis - Applicant's analysis preferred, meant phrase "on a daily basis" made sense in context of clause as whole - Overtime accrued each day - Construction clear from words - Overtime provision in CEA wrongly applied by respondent - COMPLIANCE ORDER - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought compliance order to remedy default, and arrears - Respondent argued application not suitable for compliance order - In reality matter a dispute - Respondent resisted paying arrears as applicant not diligent in progressing claim - Argument had some force - With exception of two year "error period", respondent's interpretation had applied since 1992 - Parties to engage with each other to determine consequences of decision - Leave reserved to return to Authority if matters not resolved" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s129(1) |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v;Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Godfrey Hirst New Zealand Ltd v National Distribution Union Inc unreported, Colgan;J, 27 October 2004, AC 62/04;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc & Anor v;Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd and Cityline (New Zealand) Ltd;unreported, Travis, Shaw and Perkins JJ, 27 November 2006, AC 61A/06 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 29_07.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |