| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 291 |
| Hearing date | 24 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 July 2011 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | L Yukich ; K Dunn |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Thompson and Ors v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd |
| Other Parties | Neala, Lagocki |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicants claimed respondent unlawfully made deductions from wages - Applicants were union members and part of Maintenance Response Team (MRT") - Union withdrew labour in support of bargaining claims - MRT remained on standby to provide essential services - Applicants claimed parties arranged in return for providing essential services MRT employees would receive full wages - Applicants' wages later reduced before roles disestablished - Respondent claimed applicants' work during strike less than five percent of usual workload - Applicants agreed did not carry out full duties but disputed amount of time spent carrying out essential services - Respondent claimed applicants had been on partial strike before consultation where parties agreed wages would be reduced - Previous Human Resources Manager ("S") denied agreement between parties applicants' duties would be varied and would receive full wages - Current Human Resources Manager ("H") claimed not aware of any agreement - Authority found no evidence of any agreement and respondent separate legal entity from applicants' previous employer - H accepted during earlier strikes MRT employees provided only essential services and received full wages but claimed not obligated to pay full wages and strikes of short duration - Union previously filed Employment Court ("EC") application for injunction restraining redundancies and claimed parties on strike - Applicants claimed before Authority not on strike instead duties varied - Found applicants could not be not on strike before Authority yet be on strike before EC - Found if workers not on strike whether partial strike agreement existed irrelevant - Respondent claimed as third applicant's evidence filed late should not be considered - Found third applicant's evidence regarding lost wages only should be accepted - Found applicants participated in partial strike and would not carry out normal work - Found to allow wage deductions would be inconsistent with legislation relating to suspension of striking workers - Found respondent not entitled to deduct wages and no records kept to show deductions accorded with actual work carried out - Respondent to reimburse applicants for deductions from wages - PENALTY - Found particular circumstances did not warrant penalty - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Found applicants disadvantaged by failure to pay full wages but offered no new evidence of disadvantage and third applicant's evidence filed late - No compensation - Control System Tradesmen" |
| Result | Applications granted (Arrears of wages)(Unjustified disadvantage) Arrears of wages ($12,674.05)(First applicant) ($11,504.70)(Second applicant) ($10,711)(Third applicant) ; Application dismissed (Penalty); No order for costs |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s81(1);ERA s85(1)(c)(i);ERA s87(3);ERA s96;ERA Second Schedule cl11;Judicature Act 1908 s87(3);Wages Protection Act 1983 s4;Wages Protection Act 1983 s5(1);Wages Protection Act 1983 s6(2);Wages Protection Act 1983 s11 |
| Cases Cited | NZ Labourers etc IUOW & Ors v Fletcher Challenge Ltd & Ors [1988] 1 NZLR 520;Postal Workers Association v New Zealand Post Ltd (2007) 8 NZELC 98,918;Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd (No 3) [2007] ERNZ 686 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_291.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |