| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 38/09 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2009 |
| Determination date | 09 February 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | National Distribution Union v Alesana and 551 Others and Anor |
| Other Parties | The Farmers' Trading Company Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – First applicant (“union”) and respondent entered into collective employment agreement (“CEA”) covering 552 second applicants employed by respondent – Performance management and development system (“PDP”) applied to all of respondent’s employees, whether under CEA or individual employment agreements (“IEAs”) – Respondent linked high performance under PDP with pay rises for employees on IEAs – Applicants sought pay rises linked to high performance for CEA employees also – Respondent argued applicants not contractually entitled to such increase under CEA – Union argued amounted to unlawful preference, breach of CEA and unjustified action disadvantaging second applicants – Union relied on CEA clause incorporated PDP into CEA, and relied on clause stating intent of parties to CEA – Authority found wording of CEA unambiguous – Found wording made provision for PDP, but no further – Found bases on which pay rates struck under IEAs and CEAs need not be identical – Found Authority not empowered to fix new terms and conditions of employment to overcome this omission in CEA – Issues regarding administration of PDP to be subsequently determined |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Lowe Walker Paeroa Ltd v Bennett [1998] 2 ERNZ 558 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 38_09.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |