| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 52 |
| Determination date | 14 May 2013 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; L Campbell |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union v Sealed Air (NZ) |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Matter concerned whether bargaining between parties for new collective employment agreement (“CEA”) concluded – Authority found matter not of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed – Found important questions of law likely to arise concerning legality of strike action, identifying terms and conditions of employment for current staff and how parties in agreement on CEA could enforce agreement – Found in all circumstances matter concerning whether bargaining concluded should be determined by EC – Found appropriate to remove whole matter to EC to avoid duplication – Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Respondent sought removal of certain matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important questions of law likely to arise, matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Parties had apparently agreed terms of settlement of, and variation to, new collective employment agreement (“CEA”). Applicant claimed members had voted to accept apparent terms of settlement but had not ratified CEA. Applicant sought determination bargaining not concluded or, alternatively, respondent obliged to pay applicant’s members certain allowances. Respondent claimed informed by applicant new CEA ratified and variation signed, and sought removal of matter concerning whether bargaining for new CEA concluded. Respondent claimed important questions of law likely to arise relating to whether bargaining concluded, whether terms could be amended after ratification, whether applicant obliged in good faith to conclude CEA and whether applicant estopped from denying CEA in force. Applicant claimed removal not appropriate but, if removal of certain matter ordered, appropriate for whole matter to be removed to EC.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Matter not of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed. Important questions of law likely to arise concerning legality of strike action, identifying terms and conditions of employment for current staff and how parties in agreement on CEA could enforce agreement. While no particular reasons why matter should be heard first in either Authority or EC, fact important question of law likely to arise meant in all circumstances matter concerning whether bargaining concluded should be determined by EC. Appropriate to remove whole matter to EC to avoid duplication. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1;New Zealand Public Service Assoc Inc v Secretary for Justice [2010] ERNZ 46 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_52.pdf [pdf 108 KB] |