| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 42/10 |
| Hearing date | 22 Oct 2009 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; K Burson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Redshaw v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent breached employment agreement (“EA”) by paying applicant at lesser salary base than contractually entitled to – Respondent argued no breach as new salary structure implemented altering EA – Applicant promoted to analyst position and parties agreed applicant’s existing salary level preserved at 128 percent – New EA and letter confirmed promotion and existing employment terms applied to new position – New EA provided bonuses based on performance – Three years later, respondent implemented new salary structure – Respondent argued new salary structure meant applicant no longer entitled to 128 percent salary base – Applicant continued receiving performance based salary increases however not calculated on 128 percent salary base – Applicant advised respondent had been unjustified continual decrease in salary – Respondent argued salary decrease appropriate due to new salary structure – Argued applicant aware of and accepted change therefore EA altered - Authority found probable new EA remained intact after change to salary structure – Found no evidence respondent notified applicant of remuneration change – Found respondent had obligation to deal with applicant on individual basis because of history relating to applicant’s placement on 128 percent salary base – Found failure to negotiate individually with applicant meant applicant did not accept change - Found respondent contractually obliged to pay applicant at 128 percent salary base – Found inconclusive evidence to make order regarding sum owned on claim - Breach of contract - PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for breach of EA and good faith – Authority found penalty not warranted for respondent’s breach of EA – Found no breach of good faith – Penalty declined – Business Analyst |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears of wages (Quantum to be determined) ; Application dismissed (Penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s114(1) |
| Cases Cited | Redshaw v Auckland City Council unreported, K Anderson, 28 Sep 2009, AA 346/09 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 42_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |