| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 92 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2012 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | G Davenport ; R Towner |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | The Rail and Maritime Transport Union v Lyttleton Port Company Ltd |
| Other Parties | Brewster, Cattaway, Grainger, Haines, Healy, Ringdahl, Viney, Lawton |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Whether second applicants covered by CEA – Authority found second applicants ‘cargo handlers’ within meaning of CEA – Found second applicants employed ‘at the Port of Lyttleton’ within meaning of CEA – Found second applicants covered by CEA – Question answered in favour of applicants |
| Abstract | First applicant (“RMTU”) and respondent negotiated collective employment agreement (“CEA”) with coverage clause. Wording of coverage clause retained in subsequent CEAs. Respondent commenced operations at new worksite not adjacent to main worksite. Second applicants employed at new worksite and joined RMTU. Respondent claimed second applicants not covered by CEA as not ‘cargo handlers’. Respondent claimed second applicants not ‘cargo handlers’ as principally handled empty containers. Respondent claimed second applicants not covered by CEA as not employed ‘at the Port of Lyttleton’. Respondent claimed ‘at the Port of Lyttleton’ referred to geographic position of main worksite and did not include new worksite. Applicants claimed ‘at the Port of Lyttleton’ referred to overall business operations of respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Empty containers within definition of ‘cargo’ in CEA. Workers at new worksite operated forklifts, within definition of mechanical equipment operated as part of functions of cargo handlers under CEA. Second applicants ‘cargo handlers’ within meaning of CEA. No requirement in ERA for CEA to specify location of work for purposes of coverage clause. ‘At the Port of Lyttleton’ functional reference to work of Port of Lyttleton and not to specific geographic location. Second applicants entitled to coverage under CEA. Questions answered in favour of applicants. Leave reserved for parties to have Authority determine quantum owed to applicants. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicants; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Employment Contracts Act 1991 s21;ERA s5, definition of “coverage clause”, para (a);ERA s54(3);ERA s56;ERA s65(2)(iii);ERA s65(3) |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;New Zealand Meat Processors IUOW v Auckland & Tomoana Freezing Works IUOW (1989) 2 NZELC 97,052;Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc unreported, Perkins J, 10 August 2006, AC44/06;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_92.pdf [pdf 167 KB] |