| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 99/08 |
| Hearing date | 9 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 17 July 2008 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | R Gibson, J Lawrie |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Anglican Aged Care & Ors (no respondent) |
| Other Parties | New Zealand Nurses Organisation, Service and Food Workers' Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc, The New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Joint application by parties – Whether collective employment agreement (“CEA”) entitled employees with five years service to fifth week of annual leave – Authority found each entitlement provided by Holidays Act 2003 (“HA”) was minimum entitlement – Found employers not prevented from providing employee with additional or enhanced entitlements, but CEA excluding, restricting, or reducing entitlements under HA had no effect to that extent – Authority noted Employment Court (EC) in New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 held words “enhanced” and “additional” in HA had discrete and different meanings – However, Court of Appeal (CA) held EC had erred in law in drawing absolute distinction – Authority noted CA referred case back to EC, but no judgment yet issued – Authority turned to interpret and apply plain words of disputed CEA clause in statutory context – Authority found under CEA employee entitled to extra weeks annual leave – Authority found clause to be read together with sub-clause providing annual holidays – Authority accepted applicant’s submission s6 HA did not require all employment agreements to expressly provide four weeks annual holidays for every employee – Found HA did not modify actual words used by parties in CEA, but simply made ineffectual CEA that excluded, restricted, or reduced statutory minimum – Authority found objectively determined parties contractual intention was to make no change to annual leave provisions, leaving it to HA to bring about change – Authority accepted meaning argued by applicant that clause in CEA did not entitle employee to five weeks annual leave |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 s3;Holidays Act 2003 s6;Holidays Act 2003 s5(1);Holidays Act 2003 s16 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employee Union Incorporated v Transportation Auckland Incorporation Ltd and Cityline (New Zealand) Ltd [2008] NZCA 159;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 99_08.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |