| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 25/08 |
| Hearing date | 26 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 13 March 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; R Gibson |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Service & Food Workers' Union v Dominion Salt Ltd |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant sought rectification of collective employment agreement (“CEA”), claiming was recorded in error – Respondent argued CEA accurately reflected bargain reached in negotiation – Applicant claimed erroneously signed record of settlement containing additional sentence removing entitlement to additional week’s annual leave once 1 April 2007 amendment to Holidays Act 2003 came into force – Applicant argued CEA clause conferred extra week for employees that completed 6 years service – Respondent argued additional sentence agreed to and designed to remove possibility of 5 week’s annual leave – Respondent argued parties always intended that maximum entitlement be 4 weeks – Applicant claimed would never willingly give up hard won concession of extra week leave entitlement – Authority found plain meaning of CEA clause without additional sentence created additional weeks leave – However, found additional sentence changed meaning so CEA clause of no effect at all after 1 April 2007 – Respondent argued effect of amendment to maintain status quo and if an issue would have been raised by applicant – Authority found both parties saw own position as status quo – Following applicants ratification of CEA without additional sentence, further copy forwarded to applicant containing additional sentence – Authority found when CEA finally signed contained additional sentence – Authority absolutely satisfied no agreement between parties for original wording of clause in CEA to be abrogated with additional sentence – Authority found when matters first initiated respondent raised matter but was rejected by applicant – Found parties never agreed to bargain with additional sentence added to original clause – Authority satisfied had power to grant rectification – Authority ordered CEA clause be rectified by deletion of additional sentence so clause represented bargain reached by parties – Authority directed respondent to ensure applicant’s members suffer no detriment as consequence of erroneous application of clause up to date of determination |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Bargaining |
| Statutes | Contractual Mistakes Act 1977;ERA s162 |
| Cases Cited | Goodall v Chief Executive Officer of Department of Corrections [2001] ERNZ 688 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 25_08.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |