| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 248/07 |
| Hearing date | 7 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 14 August 2007 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | S Langton ; P Cranney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | General Distributors Ltd v National Distribution Union |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Supermarket closure due to expired lease – Respondent claimed employees redundant as result of closure – Applicant intended to relocate employees to alternative locations – CEA provided that in case of redundancy company must endeavour to relocate within it, or provide compensation – Redundancy provisions come into operation when redundancy situation as defined in CEA - Interpretation of CEA definition of redundancy - CEA defined redundancy as company having labour surplus to requirements because of closing down of part of company’s operation due to re-organisation requiring permanent reduction in employees at worksite – Applicant claimed circumstances not redundancy because closure of single worksite did not cause labour surplus on company-wide scale – Applicant alleged this was consistent with intent of parties as expressed in CEA because transfer of positions avoided loss of employment, disruption and inconvenience to workers – Respondent alleged redundancy provision to be interpreted on scale of specific worksite, not company-wide needs of employer, referring to McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd v Service & Food Workers Union Inc [2004] 2 ERNZ 252 - Authority found McCain provision materially same as present – Closure of single worksite resulted in redundancy under CEA definition – Employers may not use relocation to avoid responsibilities under redundancy provisions of agreement - Applicant’s preferred interpretation circumvented CEA redundancy provision, as it was relocation under different guise – Parties’ intentions ascertained from meaning of words of CEA – CEA redundancy where employer closed supermarket and transferred employees to other stores operated by it – Therefore not mandatory for employees to seek relocation etc in lieu of CEA’s provision for redundancy compensation – Remedies - Declaration respondent’s interpretation of redundancy correct |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Declaration in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd v Service & Food Workers Union Inc [2004] 2 ERNZ 252 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 248_07.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |