| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 294/08 |
| Hearing date | 28 Apr 2008 - 8 May 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 15 August 2008 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | S Gallagher, L Jenkins |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kovacevic v Fonterra Brands Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed disadvantaged by remuneration grading system applied by respondent - Applicant claimed underpaid as never given correct grade in terms of collective employment agreement (CEA") - Applicant relied on provisions in quality assurance manual ("QAM") claiming had acquired experience and competence not reflected in grade - Authority noted QAM not part of CEA - Applicant assessed position as having comparable number of points to benchmarked position - Authority found benchmarked position a supervisory one while applicant's not - Authority found regardless, benchmarking exercise out of date and inapplicable - Respondent argued applicant appointed to appropriate grade at commencement and progressed through grade on an annual basis - Applicant also concerned discrepancies between own grading and that of colleagues - Authority accepted respondent's evidence that CEA used to set applicant's grade - Authority found fundamental principle that CEA guiding contractual document in circumstances - Authority did not agree with applicant that supporting analysis objective - Found applicant had centered on own interpretation and refused to accept certain arguments misconceived or to accept explanations casting own analysis in different light - Authority found some differences in grade attainment between colleagues explained by effect of variation to starting grade of laboratory workers - Authority found understandable someone in applicant's position employed before change, might feel aggrieved or disadvantaged - However, change did not involve breach of any obligation by respondent - Authority not persuaded applicant's grade up to and including current grade set in error - Authority found question whether applicant qualified for higher grade should be dealt with as part of appeal against job review - Authority recommended applicant take into account own arguments should centre on own competency as current arguments distracted from core argument - Authority rejected all of applicant's personal grievance claims - Authority found respondent did not fail to respond to applicant's concerns but only responded in way applicant did not find satisfactory - Found no unjustified disadvantage - Laboratory technician" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(b);ERA s114;ERA s114(1) |
| Number of Pages | 26 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 294_08.pdf [pdf 73 KB] |