The Corrections Department was entitled to cut a probation officer's salary by nearly $30,000, the Employment Court has ruled.
In February, the department cut the $70,000 salary of John Russell Goodall, a probation service employee for 33 years, to $42,000 without his consent.
The action was taken because of unforeseen circumstances arising
from changes in the law affecting compulsory retirement.
In 1996 Mr Goodall's position as regional manager was removed during restructuring.
After lengthy negotiations, he decided to return to being a probation officer.
Because he was within five years of eligibility for National Superannuation, he was entitled to retain his previous management salary in the usually lower paid position.
Mr Goodall reached retirement age, and eligibility for superannuation, on December 26 last year.
Because of a law change, it was no longer compulsory that he retire at this date, and he decided not to.
In February, the department cut his salary to that of a probation officer.
Judge Barrie Travis of the Employment Court said that there was an implied term in the agreement between the parties that Mr Goodall would receive the higher salary until retirement age.
Because of a change that neither party contemplated, he was no longer required to retire and chose not to.
Judge Travis said that allowing Mr Goodall's salary to continue indefinitely at the higher level after his date of eligibility for the guaranteed retirement income would be to produce an absurd result that was never intended by the parties.
This was clearly demonstrated by the exchange of correspondence leading up to the reassignment agreement.
- NZPA
