| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 154/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Sep 2008 |
| Determination date | 16 October 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P White ; P Cranney |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | West Coast District Health Board v New Zealand Public Service Association |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Dispute as to correct application of staff surplus provisions in two collective employment agreements (“CEAs”) between applicant District Health Board and respondent union – Relevant provision provided that there were number of options to be explored in staff surplus situations regarding staff who were declared surplus to requirements and that identification of which option to apply in particular employee’s case subject of negotiation – CEA did not provide for situation where negotiation failed to produce agreement – Applicant claimed in event negotiation of options for an employee either did not happen or did not result in agreement, applicant could offer redeployment or retraining without agreement, and if offer not accepted, no severance or gratuity payment made – Respondent argued if agreement not reached in negotiation, affected employee entitled to severance or gratuity payment – Authority found respondent’s argument was CEAs silent on point so, on general legal principles, insofar as modification of common law was incomplete, common law applied – Authority noted hierarchy of options and that provision stated aim was to minimise use of severance – Applicant argued given minimisation of severance principle and hierarchy of options, parties must have intended to adopt hierarchy in negotiations so that reconfirmation in position was preferred option and severance least preferred option – Authority found not right that employees surplus to applicant’s requirements who declined other options be excluded from benefit of redundancy compensation – Found severance being minimised did not mean was not available at all - Found common law concerning redundancy applied where agreement not reached - Found would remain for applicant to dismiss for redundancy, thus attracting relevant calculations in CEAs - Authority found if negotiation unsuccessful, applicant could reconfirm affected staff member without their consent, or dismiss for redundancy and pay severance pay |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA Part 6A |
| Cases Cited | Andersen v Capital Coast Health Ltd [2000] 1 ERNZ 256;Godfrey Hirst New Zealand Ltd v National Distribution Union unreported, Colgan J, 27 Oct 2004, AC 62/04;Wilson and Ors v NZCCS Marlborough Inc unreported, J Crichton, 7 Jul 2005, CA 93/05 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 154_08.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |