| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 243 |
| Determination date | 09 June 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | J Howard (in person) ; S Hornsby-Geluk |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Howard v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether Authority had jurisdiction to deal with applicant’s claim – Applicant suffered two work related incidents within a month - Month after second incident applicant presented written resignation to manager – Parties agreed on final date of employment – Applicant sought to withdraw resignation – Respondent did not accept withdrawal – Applicant raised personal grievance claiming had been constructively dismissed – Parties attended mediation and reached settlement – Record of Settlement purported to be in full and final settlement of all matters between parties arising out of employment relationship – Following termination of employment applicant received accident compensation coverage of 80 percent of rate of pay had been receiving whilst working for respondent – Over three years after applicant resigned applicant became aware of provision in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) that covered applicant whilst employed at respondent – Clause provided that if employee away from work for more than one week respondent would pay difference between earnings related compensation and what employee would have received had they been at work – Applicant contacted respondent and requested discussion about entitlement to payment – Respondent claimed applicant no longer employee therefore not covered by CEA and all matters had been fully and finally settled in Record of Settlement – Whether applicant prevented from pursuing claim for additional payment under s149 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) and terms of Record of Settlement – Respondent raised issue of whether Authority had jurisdiction to hear applicant’s claim as at time claim alleged to have arisen applicant not in employment relationship with respondent as employment ended prior to alleged loss arising – Authority accepted overall substance of respondent’s submissions on issue – Found at time applicant ceased employment were no issues relating to payment of accident compensation or operation of clause in CEA – Found while two incidents work related at no time was applicant absent from work and hence did not attract ACC payments – Found at time applicant raised claim relating to clause not only did she not meet requirements of it but was no employment relationship between applicant and respondent - Found because no employment relationship Authority did not have jurisdiction to hear claim – Found even if Authority did have jurisdiction would have found Record of Settlement full and final settlement of all matters including clause in CEA and applicant would have been barred from pursuing claim - Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s149;ERA s149(3);ERA s161 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_243.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |