| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 242/08 |
| Hearing date | 3 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 10 July 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; P Hodge |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | National Distribution Union v Gordon & Gotch (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties sought Authority determine correct interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant’s members protested when respondent relocated 15 km from original site – Applicant claimed members entitled to negotiate relocation payment under CEA – Respondent argued relocation payment only payable to employees made redundant and who were offered, and accepted alternative position which required relocation to new site – Parties settled claims except for two employees (“Y” and “H”) – Y argued more costly and took longer to get to new workplace – Y argued new arrangements stressful as required travel on motorway and inconvenient as looked after granddaughter – Respondent argued public transport available and could adjust hours so could pick up granddaughter as required – H argued had anxiety disorder and incapable of driving to new worksite – H initially driving to original worksite and sharing taxi with co-worker to new worksite – H stopped attending work when respondent withdrew co-workers taxi payment – H argued if used public transport away from home for approximately 11 hours per day whereas away 8.5 hours at original worksite – H argued extra $60 to $70 if drove to new location – H provided psychiatrist evidence showing anxiety most severe when driving – Respondent argued public transport available to H – Authority found although respondent did not address H’s anxiety, suggested flexible hours would allow avoidance of peak traffic – Authority noted in earlier determination only staff who were redundant in terms of CEA eligible to negotiate relocation payment – Authority found if H and Y not redundant not entitled to redundancy payment or to negotiate relocation payment – Authority found question to be determined whether reasonable or not for respondent to expect Y and H to relocate their place of work – Authority found genuine and pressing requirement on respondent to relocate business – Authority found many employees required to commute through stressful traffic conditions – Found additional time spent by Y in traffic not unreasonable and no redundancy – Found relocation reasonable only by narrow margin – Authority found H did not make anxiety condition known to respondent when relocation being considered – Found not unreasonable to expect H to relocate and no redundancy |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | NZ Printing etc IUOW v Sigma Print Ltd [1979] ACJ 297;NZ Post Office Union v NZ Post Limited (1990) 2 ERNZ 114;Tuiaepa v Auckland Area Health Board [1992] 2 ERNZ 114 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 242_08.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |