| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 224/10 |
| Determination date | 12 May 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | R Upton ; G Lloyd |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Tenix Alliance (NZ) Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc. |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicant traditionally operated one work pattern but determined did not meet needs of organisation – Applicant claimed able to introduce new work patterns provided complied with hours of work provisions in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Respondent claimed new work patterns represented variation to ordinary hours and agreement required before new work patterns introduced – Authority found relevant clause of CEA unambiguous – Found clause did not limit work pattern to normal hours – Found subject to obligations of good faith, hours of work may be subject to change without agreement |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant – Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Barker [2002] 2 ERNZ 719;NZ Tramways & Public Transport Employees Union v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 224_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |