| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 244 |
| Hearing date | 8 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 09 June 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | R McCabe ; K Thompson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Air Line Pilot's Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Applicant sought declaration about interpretation and application of parties collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Dispute concerned payment of breakfast allowances – Applicant claimed respondent breached CEA by not paying breakfast allowance to pilots in two pilot crews whose planned flight duty were for less than 11 hours – Respondent claimed CEA did not provide for allowance to be paid to pilots in circumstances identified because was no requirement for pilots to be provided with breakfast meal and, therefore, no requirement to pay allowance in substitution – Respondent acknowledged had previously paid some allowances but claimed was in error and would be entitled to recover payments - At opening of investigation meeting Authority raised with parties whether matter would be best removed to EC for determination – Parties agreed removal appropriate given particular circumstances and nature of matter for determination – Accepted Authority ordering removal on own motion – Authority satisfied matter involved important question of law likely to arise other than incidentally – Found question of law arising in matter need not be controversial, novel, or particularly difficult to be important in sense required by Employment Relations Act 2000 – Found some aspects of interpretation of particular terms in CEA not novel because same or very similar clauses in previous CEA between parties already subject of judicial scrutiny - However, found in present case appropriate approach to interpreting terms was at issue which was in itself important question of law – Found different approach to interpretation could lead to different outcome - Found also that challenge by one or other party all but inevitable given parties’ general litigation history and importance of breakfast allowance issue to them – Found Authority determination would not really assist parties – Authority satisfied all circumstances supported removal of matter to EC – Matter to be removed |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178 |
| Cases Cited | Bachop v Air New Zealand Ltd [1998] 2 ERNZ 214 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_244.pdf [pdf 16 KB] |