| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 409 |
| Hearing date | 23 - 24 Apr 2013 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | P Skelton, M Tushingham ; A N McInally |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Steel Mining Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Questions answered in favour of respondent |
| Abstract | Applicant (New Zealand Steel Mining Ltd) and respondent (New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc) parties to collective employment agreement (“CEA”). Parties disputed interpretation and application of CEA. Parties CEA defined work of employees as including mining, concentration and slurry pumping of iron sands and the conversion of iron sand concentrate to iron. Parties CEA provided for some circumstances where contractors may be used. Applicant claimed remnant mining and oversized material work could be carried out by contractors under CEA. Applicant claimed parties agreed to remnant mining being carried out by contractors. Respondent claimed remnant mining involved mining iron sand using truck and shovel and bringing sand within reach of bucket wheel excavators. Respondent claimed remnant mining work being carried out by contractors not agreed to. Applicant claimed oversized material work not covered by CEA. Material too large to be filtered into iron sand placed in dumpsite. Applicant contracted workers to obtain specialist machinery to process oversized material. Applicant claimed oversized material work not mining but “mining support” at best. Respondent claimed oversized material work not of kind that could be carried out by contractors under CEA. Applicant claimed if first arguments failed, both types of work required specialist skills not possessed within company. Alternatively, applicant claimed peak workloads over and above normal fluctuations in routine work required use of contractors. Parties CEA stated contractors not preferred where applicant failed to investigate other alternatives.;AUTHORITY FOUND-;DISPUTE: Parties intended remnant mining to include mining iron sand using truck and shovel and bringing sand within reach of bucket wheel excavators. Remnant mining work being carried out by contractors not agreed to by both parties. Skills required for remnant mining not exceptional or out of ordinary. Remnant mining routine work. Applicant could not use contractors for remnant mining. Processing of oversized material was mining and similar to remnant mining. Oversize material work covered by CEA. Oversized material work did not require specialist skills. Applicant could not use contractors for oversized material work. Applicant’s failure to investigate alternatives prevented applicant from preferring contractors for both types of work. Questions answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666;Hutton & Ors v Provencocadmus Ltd (in Rec) [2012] NZEmpC 207; Lowe Walker Paeroa Ltd v Bennett [1998] 2 ERNZ 558;Secretary for Education v New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa [2002] 2 ERNZ 470;Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_409.pdf [pdf 334 KB] |