| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 105 |
| Determination date | 20 July 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; T Clarke |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Pike River Coal Ltd (in receivership) |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Respondent in receivership – Receivers gave notice of termination to all respondent’s employees – Schedule 7 Companies Act 1993 set out priority for payment of preferential claims – Receiver did not include amount for payment of salary in lieu of notice when calculated redundancy compensation and paid preferential entitlements – Receiver claimed amount in lieu of notice should not be included in calculation of employees’ preferential claims – Applicant claimed payment of salary in lieu of notice did form part of affected employees’ contractual redundancy entitlement under CEA – Applicant claimed if Authority accepted definition of redundancy compensation in CEA included payment of salary in lieu of notice then it must be treated as preferential claim – Applicant claimed the form compensation might take wholly dependent on wording of CEA – Applicant claimed compensation must be given broad meaning – Applicant claimed employees to receive payment of four weeks wages in addition to monetary compensation under CEA – Applicant claimed compensation for redundancy part of suite of entitlements contained in CEA and to limit meaning of redundancy compensation would be unreasonable – Applicant claimed anything contained in CEA to recompense affected employees in event of redundancy including payment of salary in lieu of notice was compensation for redundancy – Respondent claimed redundancy compensation and payment in lieu of notice were separate obligations and entirely different notions – Respondent claimed receivers lawfully terminated employees’ employment and converted any claim for amount in lieu of notice into claim for damages – Respondent claimed damages different from redundancy compensation – Authority found wider interpretation of compensation not supported by words of CEA – Found payment of salary in lieu of notice and redundancy compensation separate obligations when read in context with clauses as whole – Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 Schedule 7;Companies Act 1993 Schedule 7 cl1(2);Receiverships Act 1993 s30(2);Receiverships Act 1993 s32(1)(b);Receiverships Act 1993 s33 |
| Cases Cited | AG v Richardson [1999] 2 ERNZ 866;Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Corrections Association of NZ Inc [2005] ERNZ 984;Fryer v System Services Pty Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 321;Re New Zealand Seafarers' Union Retirement and Welfare Plans [1996] ERNZ 259;Spencer Williams Bullen as receiver of Sew Hoy & Sons Limited C.P No 21/90 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_105.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |