RESEARCH REPORT: DETERMINATIONS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
| Volume 27 Number 3 | October 2002 |
|
RESEARCH REPORT: DETERMINATIONS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
|
|
Wage reimbursement awards and compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings were tested for associations with case variables that might serve as predictors.* Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings is, in all probability, the remedy which is most discretionary in the hands of decision makers. It is evidence-based, but often less tangibly so than wage reimbursement, and so perhaps a better candidate for identifying predictor variables. Wages reimbursement awards to successful grievants were examined first, however, but not too much was found.
Perhaps surprisingly, there are no predictors at all for wage reimbursement awards in the Authority. What that means, in effect, is that there are no variables associated with the nature of the case, the parties or their representation, or the hearing or hearing officer that are associated with wage reimbursement outcomes in the Authority in a statistically significant way.
The Tribunal wage result is much more predictable. The key predictor variable for wage reimbursement awards to successful grievants is occupation (p<.0001), with the population dividing into two groups - managers, professionals, technicians and associate professionals in the first group; everyone else in the other. Given "ordinary time remuneration" levels for various occupations in New Zealand, it stands to reason that the average wage reimbursement award for successful grievants in the first group was substantially higher than the average award for the second group.
Again predictably, within this latter "all others" category, the nature of employment showed up as a second tier predictor (p<.01), the sub-sample dividing between full-time employment on the one limb, and the part-time and casual employment categories on the other. Again it stands to reason that wage reimbursement awards for full time workers would, on average, be higher than those for part-time and casual workers.
And finally, again perhaps predictably, location emerged as a third tier predictor (p<.001) for the full-time sub-sub-sample, presumably reflecting different overall wage levels in different regional labour markets.
With regard to compensation to successful grievants for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, in the Tribunal adjudicator identity was the first and only predictor (p<.0001), with Tribunal Members sorting into three groups. The first small group (four Members) made an average compensation award of $2,410 to successful grievants. The second and largest group (14 Members) made an average compensation award of $4,428. The third group (nine Members) awarded an average of $6,638 compensation. There were no clearly distinguishing profiles defining the groups, other than the fact that there were no South Island Members in the high award group.
In the Authority, there was again just one predictor that emerged from the statistical model. Employee representation was the only factor statistically significantly associated (p<.05) with compensation outcomes.
Successful grievants represented by lawyers were distinguished from all others, with those represented by lawyers averaging compensation awards of $6,580 and those with any other representation, including self-representation, averaging compensation at the markedly lower level of $3,447. Intuitively, that suggests that lawyers do better than other representation at arguing factors - including reduction of remedies considerations - that go to an award of compensation to successful grievants.
*The other remedies provided for in the Employment Relations Act 2000, as they
were in the Employment Contracts Act 1991, are compensation for loss of benefits
and reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position from which he or she
was removed. As noted earlier, only about five percent of successful grievants
are awarded compensation for loss of benefits, and it is claimed by only a small
minority of grievants. The ERA installs reinstatement as a primary remedy for
personal grievances. Nonetheless, as was the case under the ECA, reinstatement
is apparently still relatively infrequently claimed by grievants at the adjudication
stage of grievance processing, and infrequently awarded. Authority determinations
for the first 18 months show reinstatement ordered 13 times and refused three
times, although it is accepted that reinstatement might have been sought by
additional grievants in cases where that has not been recorded in the Authority
determination. Either way, reimbursement of lost remuneration and compensation
for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings remain the principal
remedies for successful personal grievants under the ERA, as they were under
the ECA.
|