| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 74/07 |
| Hearing date | 1 Mar 2007 |
| Determination date | 04 July 2007 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; K Toogood QC |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Best & Ors v TNL Group Ltd |
| Other Parties | Horrell, Nees, Satherly |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Application of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Eligibility for shift allowances – Respondent argued applicants not shift workers and not entitled to allowance – Applicants worked same hours each week, not rotating shifts – Whether driver of tractor unit worked shifts, or whether tractor unit worked shifts when deployed on different tasks during night or day hours - Whether work had to be same at day and night for there to be a “shift” – Copies of earlier agreements between respondent and union showed payments once made on per vehicle basis – Applicants used term “shift truck” to describe tractors that worked day and night hours – Colloquial term understandable – However, different matter to import from description an obligation on respondent to pay whoever drove tractor – Upon close reading of documents clear rotation established by roster critical to definition of shift and specific change made to pay employees not vehicles – Only employees working rotating hours eligible for shift allowance – Applicants not entitled to shift allowance |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Inspector of Awards v Caxton Printing Works [1975] BA 6445;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Skeggs Foods Ltd [1984] ACJ 85 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 74_07.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |