| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 17 |
| Hearing date | 7 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 01 February 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; J O'Connell |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota and Anor v Sealord Group Ltd |
| Other Parties | Page |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Dispute about interpretation, application, and operation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – First applicant party to CEA with respondent – Second applicant employee of respondent and covered by CEA - Clause 12 of CEA described process where staff members could move from lower grade to higher grade – Second applicant’s application to be re-graded rejected - Second applicant claimed met criteria for re-grading as had ability to perform two other duties within current grade, namely that of qualified packer and qualified trimmer – Respondent claimed second applicant did not have ability to perform or not already performing those duties - Parties’ disputed what was encompassed in roles – Parties disputed whether second applicant’s ability to perform part of role but not whole role should be sufficient to entitle her to re-grading - Respondent claimed second applicant unable to operate two pieces of machinery required for qualified packer role – Claimed second applicant could not trim two out of three fish species required for qualified trimmer role - Authority found was no definition of qualified trimmer or qualified packer in CEA – Found if parties had wished to agree extent of those roles would have provided definition – Found not Authority’s role to manufacture definitions for parties when none existed – Found that would take Authority dangerously close to restriction on its power contained in s163 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Found seemed to be common ground that permanently employed qualified packer would operate certain machinery and permanently employed qualified trimmer would be able to trim all three species of fish referred to in CEA – Found definition of qualified trimmer and qualified packer respectively used for purposes of defining those permanently held roles pursuant to clause 11 CEA must, of necessity, inform definition of those same roles where performed only on occasionally or part time basis pursuant to clause 12 - Found approach adopted by respondent of requiring same skill set for part time occupant of either role as full time occupant of same role preferred to applicants’ view that nature and extent of role contemplated in clause 12 fundamentally different from nature and extent of role contemplated in clause 11 - Questions answered in favour of respondent – Applicants’ claim unsuccessful - Kirimi Portion Cutter |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s163 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_17.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |