| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 146/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 April 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | P Cranney ; M Berryman |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Smith and Ors v Royal New Zealand Plunket Society |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Authority to determine whether settlement reached regarding applicants’ personal grievances – Respondent argued claims negotiated and agreement reached through applicants’ union (“ASTE”) – Respondent provider of education and family support programme (“PAFT”) – Applicants responsible for delivery of PAFT services for respondent – Respondent negotiated PAFT contract with Ministry of Education who advised respondent of reduction in PAFT services required – Respondent’s manager (“L”) told applicants contract made with ASTE to initiate discussion as consequence of reduction in funding – Respondent sought comments from applicants and ASTE about way could structure employment agreements – Applicants raised concerns that reduction of services unclear, why PAFT positions called “new”, and whether volunteers being sought – ASTE representative proposed on behalf of applicants that personal grievances available if respondent’s new configuration used – Proposal identified reduction in hours as reason for potential personal grievances – Parties also disputed whether ASTE advised respondent that personal grievances would probably be raised irrespective of respondents proposal – Respondent argued could not accept proposal from applicant’s if knew applicants’ going to raise personal grievances irrespectively – Respondent accepted revised proposal from ASTE – L believed applicants had come to terms with changes and no longer considering raising personal grievances – New contracts signed and accepted by applicants – Authority satisfied respondent’s actions in effect a compromise operating as a settlement and release – Authority found revised proposal referred to actual consideration sought by applicants that did not want interview process for new positions – Found consideration provided by respondent that agreed to applicants’ preferred hours rather than electing to allow applicant’s fixed term agreements end – Found agreement to forgo litigation also part of consideration – Authority agreed with respondent that if applicants genuinely believed receiving benefits and reserving right to bring personal grievances then incumbent on them to let respondent know – Found reduction in hours which was subject of personal grievances resolved by respondent’s agreement to applicants’ proposal |
| Result | Questions answered in favour respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Crest Line Pty Ltd [2006] 1 ERNZ 848 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 146_08.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |