| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 202/07 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jun 2007 |
| Determination date | 04 July 2007 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | L Yukich ; A Wills |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union v Pedersen Industries Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Whether entitlement to additional week’s leave crystallised on dates identified in parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”), or began to accrue from those dates – Authority heard evidence from negotiators of CEA – Issue not expressly discussed during negotiations – First part of clause made it clear entitlement became due on completion of complete year’s work – However, “note” attached to clause not well-worded – On its face, “note” no more than statement of when clause came into effect and did not address commencement date of qualifying period – Additional week’s leave available to employees who worked complete year on qualifying shift – Comments attributed to respondent’s director during negotiations appeared to amount to instruction to give union what it wanted on issue – Words and circumstances of CEA supported applicant’s interpretation – COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant had sought compliance with CEA – Compliance order discretionary – Parties genuine dispute now resolve – No reason to assume respondent would fail to act – Compliance order not necessary – Application adjourned |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | 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 | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 202_07.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |