| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 307/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Jun 2010 |
| Determination date | 30 June 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | T Malloy (in person) ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Malloy v NZ Steel Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Length of employment 34 years – Whether applicant required to perform duties involving accessing site warehouse, locating parts and issuing parts for use in work – Respondent relied on CEA in directing applicant to perform duties – Applicant claimed tasks not part of job description and not permitted variation in terms of CEA – Warehouse nightshift disestablished and workers required to perform new duties – Respondent claimed duties connected with or incidental to applicant’s usual duties in accordance with CEA – Respondent claimed requirement to perform duties temporary – Respondent alternatively argued within management prerogative to direct applicant to carry out duties – Applicant claimed new duties ongoing expectation and not temporary – Authority found no case could be made against changes provided were introduced in good faith and in manner consistent with CEA – Found respondent could require applicant to carry out new duties – Fitter/Welder |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 307_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |