| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 171 |
| Hearing date | 4 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 07 November 2011 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Cranney, C McNamara ; N Lucie-Smith |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | The New Zealand Public Sercive Association Inc v Chief of Defence Force in respect of the New Zealand Defence Force |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Parties disputed operation of salary bands in CEA after realignment of salary band and pay progression structure – Applicant claimed CEA provided for persons with 100 per cent competency to change from proficiency level 3 salary (“PL3”) to proficiency level 4 salary (“PL4”) – Applicant claimed only interpretation consistent with terms of CEA – Applicant claimed terms of settlement and performance assessment documents admissible as evidence in interpreting CEA – Applicant claimed terms of settlement resolved ambiguity contained in CEA – Respondent claimed terms of settlement inadmissible as no ratification prior to signature – Respondent claimed parole evidence inadmissible – Respondent claimed Authority could not reach outcome contended for by applicant as would be necessary to amend express terms in CEA – Respondent claimed employees on PL3 did not change salary band – Respondent claimed employees graded at PL3 received one-off $1,000 salary increase so they did not suffer pay reduction – Authority agreed with respondent’s arguments – Found additional documents not part of CEA – Found $1,000 salary increase intended to ensure no one took reduction in salary as bands were compressed and 100 per cent midpoint realigned – Found applicant’s position did not explain impact on other bands where there had been no suggestion of any movement or change – Found impact on other bands would not have been envisaged without some detail and express provisions – Found no words expressed that employees would move from PL3 to PL4 to realign with 100 per cent midpoint at PL4 |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Defence Act 1990 s11;State Sector Act First Schedule |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2008] ERNZ 8 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_171.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |