| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 399 |
| Hearing date | 30 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 14 November 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A-M McInally, A Maelzer, J Clark ; A Caisley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing union Inc & Anor v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Aviation and Marine Engineers Association Inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE – COMPLIANCE ORDER – INJUNCTION – Parties disputed interpretation of coverage clauses in various collective employment agreements (“CEA”) – Applicants sought compliance with respective CEAs and injunction preventing respondent proceeding with proposed restructure – Authority found coverage clauses in relevant CEAs referred to classifications of employees and no reference to ‘line’, ‘light’ or ‘heavy’ maintenance work – Found respondent’s evidence suggested employees covered by different CEAs working together for years undertaking ‘line’ maintenance – Found fact majority of ‘line’ maintenance work carried out by employees under certain CEA matter of custom to some extent and implied agreement, rather than because expressly required under coverage clauses of CEAs – Question answered in favour of respondent – No breach of CEAs – Application for injunctive relief declined |
| Abstract | Parties disputed interpretation of coverage clauses in various collective employment agreements (“CEA”). Applicants sought compliance with respective CEAs and injunction preventing respondent proceeding with proposed restructure. Applicants’ members employed under certain CEAs (“blue and green books”) generally performed ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ maintenance of aircraft. Other members of second applicant employed under different CEA (“purple book”) generally performed ‘line’ maintenance work. Respondent proposed to disestablish roles performing only ‘line’ maintenance work under purple book and create additional generalised maintenance roles to be governed by terms of blue and green books. Applicants claimed work carried out by employees under purple book separate to work carried out by employees under blue and green books and could not simply be absorbed by employees engaged under blue and green books. Relevant coverage clauses in CEAs referred to specified classifications of employees. Blue and green books contained clause providing for employees to undertake work temporarily in ‘line’ maintenance and purple book contained clause providing for employees to undertake work temporarily in ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ maintenance (“transfer clauses”). Applicants claimed coverage clause required to specify ‘work’ covered by CEA. Respondent claimed coverage of respective CEAs determined by reference to respective roles and associated position descriptions. Applicants claimed transfer clauses redundant if respondent correct that ‘line’ maintenance work able to be carried out by employees employed under blue and green books.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE – COMPLIANCE ORDER – INJUNCTION: Purple book only referred to classifications of employees and no reference in purple book to ‘work or type of work’ covered by CEA apart from classification of team leader. No express or implied reference to ‘line’ maintenance work under purported coverage clause of purple book. Coverage clause in blue and green books did not refer specifically to ‘work or type of work’ but referred to classifications of employees that stated roles as defined in role description documents. No reference to ‘line’, ‘light’ or ‘heavy’ maintenance work in coverage clauses of blue and green books. While transfer clauses could go some way to supporting applicants’ position, respondent’s evidence suggested employees covered by blue, green and purple books working together for years undertaking ‘line’ maintenance. Fact majority of ‘line’ maintenance work carried out by employees employed under purple book matter of custom to some extent and implied agreement, rather than because expressly required under coverage clauses of CEAs. Question answered in favour of respondent. No breach of CEAs. Application for injunctive relief declined. |
| Result | Applications dismissed; Question answered in favour of respondent; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s5;ERA s5, definition of “coverage clause”;ERA s5, definition of “coverage clause”, para (a)(i);ERA s5, definition of “coverage clause”, para (a)(ii) |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_399.pdf [pdf 282 KB] |