| Summary |
DISPUTE – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Second applicant claimed provisions of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) not displaced by provisions of part M of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) pertaining to when on call employee contracted under fixed term agreement (“FTA”) – Claimed FTA for period did not meet requirements of s66 ERA therefore unlawful – Also claimed FTA ended when relegated to on call status amounting to unjustified disadvantage – Authority found bound to consider s66 ERA, terms of FTA and previous contract or variation to terms of employment that FTA superseded, and part M of CEA – Authority found s66 ERA had application and relevance to expired FTA – Found mischief s66 ERA apparently introduced to prevent was misuse of temporary employees to avoid obligations or benefits applicable to permanent employees – Found clause 9 of CEA provided for employees such as second applicant to move between on call work and temporary fixed term work in appropriate circumstances – Found while part M of CEA could not displace s66 ERA in circumstances, both s66 ERA and relevant clauses of Part M must be read together to provide sensible and practicable workplace application – Found ss66(1) and s66(2)(a) ERA complied with – Found FTA did not technically comply with ss66(2)(b) and ss66(4)(b) ERA in that second applicant not informed within contract of “reasons for his employment ending in that way” – However, by looking at earlier variation, no doubt second applicant aware why offered fixed term temporary employment and when FTAs would end – Authority noted prudent for respondent to ensure more specific details in future FTAs – Found termination of FTA and return of second applicant to on call status was lawful as provided for in CEA – No unjustified disadvantage – Postal Delivery Worker |