| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 203/10 |
| Hearing date | 9 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Cranney ; G Pollak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | The New Zealand Public Service Association v Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed applicable terms and conditions of applicant’s members covered by collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Parties entered worksite agreement (“WA”) as variation to CEA – WA to clarify work hours and remuneration at worksite – Subsequently parties consulted to deliver Capability Project aimed to deliver flexible work practices and remuneration model – Applicant did not support remuneration model in final plan – Joint working party (“JWP”) established under CEA to make recommendations on rostering and allowances for non-standard hours of work – JWP presented proposal that all taxable allowances be replaced with new set of allowances, including non-standard hours allowance expressed as quantified loading on base pay rate – JWP’s recommendations endorsed by more than 60 percent of voting members – Respondent moved to implement changes – Staff at worksite dissatisfied because adversely affected by changes – Subsequently applicant advised members that concluded variation not ratified by members – Respondent did not accept variation invalid – Variation not ratified following second ballot of affected members – Respondent emphasised compatible and cost effective outcome had been achieved – Authority found no application for declaration or other remedy in respect of ratification ballot – Found issue developed as investigation progressed – Found no direct evidence of agreement in advance of ratification ballot regarding majority required to ratify proposed variations – Found agreement could not be inferred from working party terms of reference – Found matter rested on mutual assumption and expectation which parties acted on until legal opinion to different effect obtained – Authority unpersuaded ratification process required 60 percent majority of those directly affected who voted and was failure to reach required majority – Found ratification valid – Found salary scale recommended by JWP applicable – Found with reference to WA there was new hours of work agreement – Found site rate did not apply – Orders made |
| Result | Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s51;ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Engineering Union Inc v Shell Todd Oil Services (NZ) Ltd [1994] 2 ERNZ 536 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 203_10.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |