| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 131 |
| Hearing date | 28 Mar 2013 |
| Determination date | 16 April 2013 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; A Schirnack |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Maritime Union of New Zealand v Portpro Inc |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for cancellation of union registration under s17 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Authority found statutory presumption of compliance with ERA at point respondent’s registration as union took place – Found Authority’s discretion under s17(2) ERA to order cancellation of respondent’s registration arose only where respondent’s non-compliance with registration requirements in s14(1) ERA occurred subsequent to fact of registration – Found fact of respondent’s registration meant Registrar of Unions presumed respondent’s rules compliant with s14(1) ERA at time of registration and subsequent amendment to respondent’s rules did not affect presumption – Cancellation of respondent’s registration declined |
| Abstract | Applicant sought cancellation of respondent’s union registration under s17 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”). Applicant claimed respondent’s rules did not comply with registration requirements of s14(1)(a) ERA at time of respondent’s registration as did not promote members’ collective employment interests. Respondent’s rules amended subsequently to state respondent established to further interests, including collective interests, of respondent’s members. Applicant claimed subsequent amendment of rules did not rectify initial failure to fulfil requirements of s14(1)(a) ERA. Respondent claimed statutory presumption of compliance with s14(1) ERA requirements at time of registration.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Section 14(2) ERA clear Registrar of Unions (“Registrar”) entitled to rely upon statutory declaration made by respondent when deciding whether respondent entitled to be registered as union. Once respondent registered as union, certificate of registration conclusive proof under s15(3) ERA of compliance with all requirements of ERA. Statutory presumption of compliance with ERA at point registration of respondent took place. Authority’s discretion under s17(2) ERA to order cancellation of respondent’s registration arose only where respondent’s non-compliance with registration requirements in s14(1) occurred subsequent to fact of registration. Fact of respondent’s registration meant Registrar presumed respondent’s rules compliant with s14(1) ERA at time of registration and subsequent amendment to respondent’s rules did not affect presumption of compliance. Cancellation of respondent’s registration declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s13(2)(c);ERA s14;ERA s14(1);ERA s14(1)(a);ERA s14(2);ERA s15(2);ERA s15(3);ERA s17;ERA s17(2) |
| Cases Cited | Meat & Related Trades Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc v Te Kuiti Beef Workers Union Inc (2001) 1 NZELR 299 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_131.pdf [pdf 209 KB] |