| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 550 |
| Hearing date | 19 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 December 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; G Malone |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Meat and Related Trades Workers Union v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Respondent claimed important question of law likely to arise and Authority lacked jurisdiction to determine matter - Applicant sought compliance order and penalty against respondent – Applicant claimed changes made to operation of respondent’s plant (“M”) implemented without consultation and breached respondent’s contractual and statutory obligations – Changes increased M’s operation tally – Applicant claimed new tally would need to be met with same manning levels and would require employees to work significantly harder and faster – Respondent claimed not required to consult before changes implemented and had not breached contractual or statutory obligations – Respondent claimed matter important question of law as raised issue of whether consultation under collective agreement (“CA”) required agreement – Authority found union only sought determination of whether respondent was required to discuss proposed tally before implementation – Found question of law identified by respondent did not arise from factual situation applicant asked Authority to investigate – Found CA wording contemplated consultation before decision made but accepted might not always be agreement after consultation – Respondent claimed change in tally was not inconsistent with CA – Respondent claimed entitled to fix different terms when taking on employees for new season and issue raised important question of law for industry – Respondent claimed employees signed induction form when commenced employment that stated work would be at speed dependent on operational requirements – Respondent claimed during off-season employment relationship ceased to exist - Respondent claimed therefore as decision made during off-season and employees not employed at time decision made employees did not have right to consultation – Found determination of whether employees employed at time decision was made strongly influential issue and important question of law – Applicant claimed intended to lodge application regarding similar facts relating to another of respondent’s plants – Found intended application showed current matter would have ramifications for more than one workplace – Found parties’ different understandings of consultation obligations was significant problem in parties’ employment relationship and would be assisted by guidance of EC decision – Found overall merits favoured removal - Matter removed to EC |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(2)(b);ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s4(4)(d);ERA s159;ERA s161(2);ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s188(2) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Education Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1;New Zealand Meatworkers’ Union Inc v Alliance Group Ltd [2006] ERNZ 664;New Zealand Meat Workers Union and Related Trades Union Inc v Richmond [1992] 3 ERNZ 643;New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union v Affco New Zealand Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 480 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_550.pdf [pdf 85 KB] |