Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 67/08
Hearing date 21 Feb 2008
Determination date 15 May 2008
Member H Doyle
Representation P Brown ; P Kiely
Location Christchurch
Parties Hill v Tasman Insulation New Zealand Ltd
Summary DISPUTE - Applicant made redundant - Parties disagreed over which redundancy compensation policy applied - Employment agreement stated separate Salaried Redundancy Agreement (“SRA”) applied - However, applicant claimed shown different policy when offered position - Submitted influenced in his decision to enter employment agreement by common mistake and common intention alternative policy would apply – Words of employment agreement clear - Surrounding circumstances could not be used to vary or modify clear provisions of agreement - Authority not satisfied evidence warranted inference that reference in employment agreement to SRA was a common or shared mistake - Applicant may have mistakenly been given different redundancy policy when employed - However, no evidence to support a common intention that agreement should refer to alternative policy and not SRA - No mistake falling within s6(1) Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 - No common intention terms of alternative policy would apply to applicant - Claim for rectification dismissed - Clear and unambiguous words of employment agreement provided provisions of SRA would apply in event of redundancy - Respondent had paid applicant redundancy entitlements under employment agreement and SRA and in doing so had discharged its obligation
Result Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Main Category Dispute
Statutes Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 s6(1);Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 s6(1)(a)(ii);ERA s103(3);ERA s162
Cases Cited Merbank Corporation Ltd v. Cramp [1981] NZLR 721;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees;Union Inc v. Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] 1 ERNZ 1005
Number of Pages 9
PDF File Link: ca 67_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB]