| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 398/09 |
| Hearing date | 4 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 11 November 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Ah Ching and Ors v Westpac New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of two written agreements entered into before collective employment agreement (“CEA”) concluded – Bank shifted to new premises in same area – Applicants claimed compensatory payment under terms of employment for relocation to new place of work – CEA did not provide for relocation payments – Applicants claimed relocation compensation provided for in agreements – Respondent argued clause only applied to relocation to different area – Under Unity offer respondent offered to pay transport allowance to employees relocating to new site in central business district (“CBD”) – Authority found Unity offer originated outside CEA – Respondent argued union maker of Unity offer – Found Unity offer made by respondent – Found respondent had no intention of having offer apply to employees relocating within CBD – Found only employees relocating from outside CBD entitled to compensatory payment – Found Unity offer excluded applicants from compensatory relocation payment |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 398_09.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |