| Summary |
DISPUTE – Interpretation, application and operation of collective employment agreement (CEA") – Applicant’s position redundant due to restructuring – CEA provided redeployment, and redeployment process - Respondent accepted required to make every endeavour to redeploy, with discretion as to how done - Applicant and co-worker (“B”) wanted newly created co-ordinator position – Applicant claimed redeployment matter of right under CEA – B’s individual employment agreement ("IEA") had no redeployment clause - Both required to submit to same selection process for co-ordinator position – Respondent claimed suspension of CEA necessary, apparently under mistaken belief to apply CEA would confer preference to applicant in breach of s9 Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA") – Respondent approached question of redeployment incorrectly – Required to focus on express terms of CEA, and do same in relation to B’s IEA – No general overriding principle of equality of treatment, unless CEA and IEA contained identical provisions - Preference did not exist simply because terms and conditions different – Any betterment product of collective bargaining, rather than union membership – Respondent also claimed because co-ordinator position not within coverage of CEA, clauses did not operate beyond introductory clause – CEA continued to apply to applicant, at least until appointed to other position – Co-ordinator position not precluded from being subject of respondent’s discretion under CEA - Applicant entitled to have provisions applied fully, not just partly - Provisions relating to formation and role of committee did not detract from effective application of CEA – Respondent to start afresh, and reconsider applicant as potential appointee to co-ordinator position, or any other appropriate position – COMPLIANCE ORDER - Application for compliance order declined to allow respondent to exercise its discretion" |