| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 68 |
| Hearing date | 28 Jan 2011 |
| Determination date | 21 February 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | H McAra ; K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Blom and Ors v Ports of Auckland Ltd |
| Other Parties | Coulam, King, Newton, Perkinson, Tolich |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicants sought declaration 2003 productivity incentive plan (“P”) contractually binding and could not be varied without agreement – Respondent claimed entitled to revert to 2002 provisions in absence of other agreement – Respondent sought to replace P in which applicants entitled to participate – P initially implemented in 2002 as term of applicants’ employment – Trial changes to P introduced in 2003 and still in force in 2009 – Applicants did not agree to replacement arrangements so respondent attempted to revert to 2002 method of calculation – 2003 scheme easier to achieve than 2002 scheme – Whether respondent could rely on words “trial basis” and “without prejudice” to justify view arrangement did not become term of employment and therefore respondent could revert to 2002 provisions – Authority found “trial” incorporated intention to test suitability – Found 2003 P initially intended as trial but no reviews undertaken – Found mutual acquiescence therefore 2003 P could not longer be regarded as trial – Found 2003 P became binding and could only be amended by agreement – Found respondent should attempt to resolve matter by negotiation but obliged to continue to observe 2003 P until agreement on alternative reached – Found application for compliance orders adjourned pending outcome of further negotiations |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_68.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |