| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 201/07 |
| Hearing date | 6 Jun 2007 |
| Determination date | 03 July 2007 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Ballara ; R McIlraith |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc v North Tugz Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Interpretation of holiday and pay provisions in collective employment agreement (CEA") - CEA provided employees with minimum hours each day - On public holidays employees entitled to time and a half only for hours actually worked, to be paid ordinary rates for remainder of minimum hours - Respondent made correct payments, no breach of CEA - Respondent had previously paid penal rates for full minimum hours - Applicant claimed discrimination on basis of involvement in activities of union - Change applied to all employees and action in accordance with statue - Not discriminatory or breach of good faith - Parties disagreed about rate of pay when duties changed during shift - Respondent's interpretation correct - When moving from lower paid task, employee entitled to paid at higher rate from time started working on new task - Entitlement to alternative holiday for being on call on public holiday - Employees required to be contactable and remain within hour of site unless prior arrangements made – Required to check tape of ship movements four times a day and unable to consume alcohol – Applicant submitted employees not called in to work public holiday either because shipping cancelled, or because not told no work, entitled to alternative holiday – Blanket provision in CEA stating day in lieu would not be paid was contrary to s59(3) Holidays Act 2003 – While Authority sympathetic to employees' claims not knowing whether required to work placed psychological impediment upon enjoyment or anticipation of public holiday, living with uncertainty intrinsic element of being on call - Restrictions imposed not so onerous employees must invariably be entitled to day in lieu – Applicant's interpretation of minimum payment for ship movements accepted - Applicant also argued two named employees incorrectly classified as casual - CEA's casual provisions inconsistent with each other and concept of casual employment - Identified employees had regular pattern of employment - Not casual employees - Questions answered" |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s107(1)(d);Holidays Act 2003 s6(2);Holidays Act 2003 s9(1)(a);Holidays Act 2003 s50;Holidays Act 2003 s59(3) |
| Cases Cited | Canterbury Hotel, Hospital etc IUOW v Fell (t/a as Leeston Hotel) [1982] ACJ 285;O'Brien (Labour Inspector) v Guardian Alarms (Auckland) Ltd [1995] 2 ERNZ 170;Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota v OCS Ltd [2007] ERNZ 169 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 201_07.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |