IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
AT SUVA

Dispute No 46 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SUVA CITY COUNCIL STAFF ASSOCIATION

AND:

SUVA CITY COUNCIL

SCCSA: Mr Krishna
SCC: Mr J Finau

DECISION

This is an employment dispute between the Suva City Council Staff Association (the Union) and the Suva City Council (the Employer) concerning payments made by the Employer in accordance with recommendations in the 2004 Job Evaluation Report (the Report).

The dispute was referred to the Tribunal by the Mediation Unit on 31 October 2008 with the following reference:

"The Council's alleged incorrect implementation and payment of the approved 2004 Job Evaluation Report by Price Waterhouse Coopers. The Association maintains that the 

Council had failed to make the correct payment to its members."

The Dispute was listed for mention on 13 November 2008 and at the request of the parties was relisted for mention on 27 November 2008 to allow further time for negotiations.

On 27 November 2008 the parties informed the Tribunal that their negotiations had not resolved the Dispute. As a result the Tribunal directed the parties to file a signed statement of agreed facts within 7 days and the Dispute was relisted for mention on 5 December 2008.

A signed Statement of Agreed Facts was filed on 3 December 2008. The parties were then directed to file written submissions.

The Union filed its submissions on 11 December 2008 and the Employer did so on 8 January 2009.

As a preliminary issue, it should be noted that the Union initially reported this matter as a trade dispute by letter dated 4 March 2008 addressed to the Permanent Secretary. It was not disputed that the report was accepted by the Permanent Secretary shortly afterwards and certainly prior to 2 April 2008. As a result the matter was covered by the transitional arrangements that are set out in Regulation 58 of the Employment Relations (Administration) Regulations 2008.

The relevant background facts may be stated briefly. The Job Evaluation for Suva City Council salaried staff positions was carried out by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) in 2004 and a full report was submitted in early 2005.

The report was accepted and agreed upon by both the Employer and the Union. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for implementation was signed on 6 March 2007. The MOA was registered on 23 March 2007 in accordance with the requirements of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 97.

The preamble to that agreement included the following clause:

"2 The SCC and the Association met on Friday 2 March 2007 and have agreed to the rationale for the implementation of the Job Evaluation Exercise as per attached."

Part A of the MOA dealt with the "Implementation of Job Evaluation" and stated:

"1 The parties have agreed that payment shall be made in accordance with the Job Evaluation report of December 2004 submitted by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

2 The payments shall include incremental difference back dated to 1 January 2004.

3 The payments shall ensure by a special voucher, week ending Friday 9 March 2007."

It is noted that attached to the agreement were three pages of tables for categories 1 to 8. The last column of each table showed what is termed as a payout figure. These three pages were initialed by the signatories and were stamped as having been registered on 23 March 2007. The three pages of tables were referred to in the Preamble but were not identified in the Memorandum of Agreement. They were not referred to in the Statement of Agreed Facts.

It would appear that the Employer made payments to the Union's members on the due in accordance with the payout figures shown against each worker's name listed in the three pages of tables that were attached to the Memorandum of Agreement.

It should be noted that there is no express reference in either the Memorandum of Agreement or in the Statement of Agreed Facts as to what was the recommendation of the PWC Report concerning Job Evaluation wage increases nor was there any reference as to how these increases were to be calculated. Furthermore there is no indication in either the Agreement or the Statement of Facts as to how the payout figure in respect of each worker was calculated.

In their submissions each party has attempted to support their position by setting out calculations without indicating what provisions in the JER they were relying on to support those calculations.

As previously noted, it is not disputed that the Employer made the payments to the workers in the amounts shown as payout figures by or on the due date.

The Agreement was signed by both parties and duly registered as were the three pages of tables that were attached to the agreement. Those three pages were initialed by the same parties that had signed the agreement.

If the payments that the Union now claims are owing to its members are different from the payout figures shown in the tables on the pages attached to the agreement, then what the Union is attempting to do is in fact to vary the agreement. The Employer has not agreed to any variation of the Memorandum of Agreement. The parties are bound by the Agreement that they signed on 6 March 2007 for the implementation of the 2004 JER. It would appear that the Employer has complied with its obligations under that agreement. Whether the payout figures in the tables were made in accordance with 2004 JER is not the issue here. The issue is the agreement signed by the parties for implementation. It is of no concern to the Tribunal what negotiations took place prior to the agreement being signed by the parties.

As a result the Tribunal finds in favour of the Employer and dismisses the Dispute.

Costs are awarded to the Employer on a party/party basis to be agreed upon between the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the parties are at liberty to apply by motion for the Tribunal to fix the costs summarily.

DATED at Suva this 22nd day of January 2009.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL