| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 107/10 |
| Determination date | 01 June 2010 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G O'Sullivan ; P Chemis |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | White and Anor v Reserve Bank of New Zealand |
| Other Parties | Harrison |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Applicants alleged respondent failed to review salaries in accordance with employment agreements (“EAs”) and so were ongoing superannuation issues - Applicants sought to have matters removed to EC under s178(2)(a), (b) and (d) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) - Respondent opposed removal - Applicants claimed respondent’s decision to unilaterally remove previously in force review mechanism for each applicant’s superable salary constituted breach of key condition of applicants’ employment - Claimed question of law exists as to whether any provisions allowing respondent to change or amend benefits under superable salary scheme permitted it to remove scheme and entitlements entirely - Claimed question of law whether failure to adhere to requirements for review could be said to have caused condition to expire - Claimed question of law whether EAs entered into after existence of superable salary scheme superseded or terminated that policy - Respondent considered matters were all questions of fact - Authority found mixed questions of fact and law - Found important questions of law existed - Found greater clarity on responsibilities of parties to superannuation schemes may have impact on other employees and employers and therefore answers could be of assistance in employment law generally - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(a) ERA made out - Applicants claimed case of such nature and urgency in public interest be removed to EC - Found matter not urgent - Found possibility issues between parties had existed for about 20 years - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(b) ERA not made out - Found may be jurisdictional issues in relation to matters arising before 1991 - Found could be implications for trustees of superfund who were not parties to employment relationship problem, but some of whom were employees of respondent - Found EC could have wider jurisdiction to deal with issues - Found was complex and wide ranging employment relationship problem that would benefit from EC determining matter in first instance - Found in all circumstances matter should be removed to EC - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(d) ERA made out - Application for removal granted |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1;Manning & 29 Ors v Hewlett Packard NZ Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 13 Jun 2007, AA 175/07 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 107_10.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |