DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment relationship problem [1] On 8 November 2018, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Public Relations Limited (Xxxxxxxx Limited) entered into a Record of Settlement (settlement agreement) which was executed in accordance with the requirements of s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). This is the second time this settlement agreement has been before the Authority.1
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] A consent determination issued on 2 November 2020 set out the nature and number of breaches of employment standards committed by Indian Cuisine NZ Limited (ICNZL) and Premier Brands Limited (PBL) and the involvement in those breaches by Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, the sole director and sole shareholder of both companies, and his wife Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx, in her role calculating and processing wage and holiday payments to the employees of both companies.1 The parties had also agreed a total of
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] E tū Incorporated (E tū) is a union with members who work at Air New Zealand Regional Maintenance Limited (RML). It is a party with RML to a collective agreement that covers employees who are or become its members.1
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Application for interim orders [1] The respondent seeks an interim order from the Authority fixing rates and directing remuneration for prior work, pending final determination of the application by the first and second applicants in their second amended statement of problem dated 17 October 2022. [2] In their second amended statement of problem the first and second applicants seek determinations under s 13ZY(d)(i) and (ii) of the Equal Pay Xxx 0000 for the fixing of pay equity remuneration and rates and a review process to ensure that pay equity in respect of remuneration rates is maintained for the future.
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] This determination resolves two matters. [2] The first is an application by Hestia Limited to strike out the statement of problem dated 5 March 2019 naming Hestia Limited (t/a Ceres New Zealand LLC) as respondent. Costs are sought and there is a request that the matter be dealt with as a preliminary matter.
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] Xxxxx Xxxxx seeks the reopening of the Authority’s investigation, to which the Authority’s determination of 2 April 2019 relates, on the basis that the determination did not correctly identify her employer. The reopening is sought for the purpose of adding a third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondent to the proceedings so that the finding relating to who the correct employer is can be reconsidered. [2] Although the Statement of Problem cited two respondents, namely Canterbury Relocations Limited as first respondent and Tru Group Limited as second respondent, during the Investigation Meeting it was submitted on Xx Xxxxx’ behalf she was employed by four legal entities comprising Tru Group Limited and three other entities sitting under the Tru Group banner. [3] Tru Group Limited submitted however that Xx Xxxxx was its employee being a company in its own right. The Authority found that this was correct on the balance of probabilities. It also found Xx Xxxxx had made out her claims and awarded her remedies. Xx Xxxxx however seeks only to reopen that part of the determination which identified her employer as Tru Group Limited. [4] Nine grounds were put forward in support of her application. These are:
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] The collective agreement between the parties provides that workers covered by the collective agreement receive 5 days sick leave per annum, plus an extra 4 days sick leave per annum due to the value that the employer attaches to collective bargaining and this collective agreement. The collective agreement was put into place prior to recent amendments to the Holidays Act 2003 (Holidays Act), which now provide all employees with a minimum statutory entitlement to 10 days sick leave per annum. [2] The parties disagree as to the correct interpretation and application of the collective agreement in light of this amendment to the Holidays Act. The applicant unions (unions) say that this means workers are now entitled to 10 days sick leave per annum, plus the extra 4 sick days in addition to this. The respondent employer (Access) says that workers are now entitled to 10 days sick leave per annum, and that as this is in excess of the previous total of 9 days sick leave per annum provided for under the collective agreement, the extra 4 days provided in that agreement have effectively been subsumed by/within the increased minimum entitlement. [3] As the parties cannot reach agreement, they have asked the Authority to determine their dispute. The Authority’s investigation [4] Given the scope of the matter to be determined, the parties agreed that it was appropriate for the matter to be determined “on the papers” following the provision of written submissions from both parties. [5] As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and submissions received. The issues [6] The issues requiring investigation and determination were:
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. Employment Relationship Problem [1] The Applicant, a Labour Inspector, seeks penalties against seven of the named Respondents for breaches of the Minimum Wages Act 1983 (MWA) and the Holidays Act 2003 (HA). [2] The seven Respondents against whom penalties are sought are:
