| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 362 |
| Hearing date | 31 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 17 August 2011 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | A-M McInally ; E Coats |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | McAuley v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant claimed was permanent employee as fixed term employment agreements invalid – Applicant claimed denied permanent employee benefits and should be compensated for redundancy, employer contribution towards superannuation, insurance, interest and paid $4,000 compensation – Respondent claimed applicant’s employment terminated in accordance with fixed term and not entitled to any remedies – Respondent undertook restructuring process including proposal production employees would also act as fire fighters – Applicant accepted first two agreements valid fixed term agreements – New collective employment agreement (“CEA”) settled and respondent withdrew proposal – However in CEA under “consultation” heading stated review of fire service would be immediate challenge faced by respondent - Applicant offered third fixed term agreement expiring two months later on completion of restructure – Applicant claimed restructuring of emergency services had lapsed – Respondent claimed restructuring was outstanding matter and consultation continued – Fourth fixed term agreement offered to applicant and ended on completion of restructure but no fixed end date – Manager wrote letter to applicant that respondent was still negotiating provision of emergency services – Authority found when applicant offered third fixed term respondent had no particularised proposed changes although generally wanted to continue review – Found year and half later new proposal for restructuring was put to employees and year later respondent told union negotiations would cease – Found at time of third employment agreement respondent did not have sufficiently specific event on which to base fixed term as no particular proposal in place at time – Found genuine but general desire to effect change did not meet requirements of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Found third and fourth fixed term agreements invalid and applicant permanent employee from settlement of collective agreement and withdrawal of first proposal - Parties to attempt to resolve remedies - Professional Fire Fighter |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for loss of benefits (parties to determine quantum and interest) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(1);ERA s66(2) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_362.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |