| Summary |
DISPUTE – Applicant disputed interpretation of provision in Collective Employment Agreements (“CEA”) that covered members employed by respondent – Dispute involved multi union CEA (“utilities agreement”) between applicant, respondent and amalgamated union and CEA (“officers agreement”) between applicant and respondent – Dispute related to overtime payments for work by employees on or above 100 percent rate for grade 14 and above in CEAs – Respondent departed from previous practice by declining overtime pay for employees – Applicant argued both CEAs provided overtime pay irrespective of rate of pay of relevant employee – Respondent argued alternative provisions for employees on grade 14 and above and general provisions did not apply – Authority found words in relevant provisions of CEAs clear and unambiguous – Authority analysed CEAs separately – Authority satisfied clause 7 in officers agreement applied to standby time and call out time and therefore applicant’s argument that provisions special examples of overtime failed – Authority found payment of overtime to employees below 100 percent step of grade 14 automatic, however, payment discretionary for employees above 100 percent step of grade 14 – Found respondent clear that only arguing payment not mandatory for those employees above 100 percent step of grade 14 – Authority satisfied clauses in utilities agreement supported argument advanced by respondent – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that provision in utilities agreement free standing code – Applicant argued custom and practice supported argument for overtime pay – Authority found custom and practice could not override plain meaning of words where no ambiguity – Authority concluded CEAs did not automatically entitle employees paid on 100 percent rate of grade 14 and above to overtime pay – Questions answered in favour of respondent |