| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 346/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 28 September 2009 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; K Burson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Redshaw v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Application for strike out – Applicant claimed raised unjustified disadvantage grievance within 90 day period – Respondent argued grievance not raised within time – Applicant’s employment agreement (“EA”) provided entitled to salary increase based on performance – Applicant received salary increases for three years – Applicant promoted to new position - Respondent changed remuneration policy however applicant believed EA not altered as subsequent letters confirmed EA remained unchanged when applicant promoted – Four years later, respondent made second change to remuneration policy – Memorandum and subsequent letter confirmed respondent implemented new policy and applicant not entitled to salary increase – Following year, applicant received salary increase however increase level not consistent with EA – Applicant claimed disadvantage caused by monetary loss due to remuneration policy – Authority found applicant had no good reason to raise grievance when remuneration policy first changed - Found respondent’s letters did not clearly indicate whether EA affected – Found probable applicant believed EA remained unchanged – Found applicant knew or ought to have known EA altered when policy changed for second time – Found monetary shortfalls great therefore could not have been overlooked by applicant – Found even if shortfall overlooked in previous year, improbable applicant would have overlooked shortfall last year – Found could be reasonably implied applicant accepted remuneration change when there were continual decreases in applicant’s pay scale from when policy first changed – Grievance raised out of time – Strike out granted - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BREACH OF CONTRACT - ARREARS OF WAGES – Application for strike out – Applicant sought $98,938 arrears of wages for unjustified disadvantage and breach of EA - Respondent argued applicant estopped as applicant passively acquiesced to remuneration policy changes - Authority found no evidence respondent suffered detriment in reliance upon any assurances applicant made – Found “passive acquiescence” or silence in response to policy change insufficient to establish estoppel – Found applicant not estopped from pursuing claim, however, may wish to consider claim’s merits – Strike out declined – Business Analyst/Manager |
| Result | Application granted (Strike out)(Unjustified disadvantage) ; Applications dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) (Strike out)(Arrears of wages)(Breach of contract) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s114(1) |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd unreported, Colgan CJ, 15 Sept 2006, AC 53/06;Mowat v NZ Stevedoring Co Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 61;NZ Building Trades Union v Ebert Bros Construction Limited [1991] 3 ERNZ 1004 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 346_09.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |