| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 88/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Dec 2007 |
| Determination date | 12 March 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | L Yukich ; R Drake |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union v Pedersen Industries Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Compliance sought with “tool account” provisions in Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant argued respondent declined to reimburse union members for purchase of tools in accordance with CEA – Respondent argued complied with CEA and reimbursement for non work related tools not covered by CEA – Respondent argued prior to negotiation of CEA, employees on individual employment agreements (“IEA”) required to acknowledge receiving practice and procedure manual – During CEA negotiations respondent confirmed “tool account” policy would apply to employees using tools at work – Respondent argued completed CEA included abbreviated version of “tool account” policy from manual – Respondent rejected several claims on tool account for non work related tools and on basis work tools already supplied – Applicant argued CEA clear and tools purchased not specifically required in workplace – Respondent argued wording in CEA to be read in conjunction with policy on which it was based – Argued tool allowance policy applied to “job specific tools” to be used at work more than at home according to 80/20 rule – Also argued if reimbursing allowance used to reimburse for non-work related expenses then would be illegal tax avoidance – Authority found CEA to be construed objectively and not confined to only look at contract – Found as a matter of fact applicant aware of tool policy and policy basis for respondent’s offer during CEA negotiations – Authority found disingenuous for applicant to suggest believed respondent agreed to reimburse employees for non-work related tools – Found no doubt parties at negotiations assumed payment non taxable – Authority accepted clause did not specifically say tools purchased must relate to employees work – However, interpretation that employees be entitled to reimbursement of non-work related tools would impose an extraordinary and illegal interpretation to CEA – Compliance order declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | ASTE Te Hau Takitini O Aotearoa Inc v Hampton, Chief Executive Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Quainoo v NZ Breweries Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 161 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 88_08.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |