| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 98/09 |
| Hearing date | 23 Apr 2008 - 27 Feb 2009 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 30 March 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | M treen ; R Towner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sue & Ors v HMSC-Aial Ltd |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicants sought declaration respondent failed to provide paid break specified in employment agreement (“EA”) and so breached EA - Applicants sought order for reasonable compensation for breach - Applicants claimed throughout employment did not receive full paid break entitled to under EA - Authority found none of four of applicants claims established - Found insufficient evidence, apart from applicants’ assertions, that did not receive break - Applicants’ claims unaware entitled to break rejected - Respondent’s evidence applicants told of entitlement to breaks during induction accepted - Found while possible may have been occasions when employee did not receive paid break no employee deliberately or systematically deprived of opportunity - Authority found if had found applicants did not receive all breaks consideration of remedy sought would have raised problems - First problem ascertaining when breaks not provided and how many times over periods of employment spanning several years - Secondly if applicants did not take break were still paid for time regardless and in principle employee may not recover payment a second time for same period - Authority adjourned investigation to allow parties further opportunity to resolve problem by agreement based on Authority’s findings in relation to four applicants - Following mediation applicants to advise Authority if matter resolved or if investigation to be continued - Associates |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s137 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 98_09.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |