| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 467 |
| Hearing date | 28 Oct 2014, 31 Oct 2014 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 14 November 2014 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Service and Food Workers' Union and Ors v Skycity Auckland Ltd |
| Other Parties | Unite Union, K Baker and Ors |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicants claimed respondent breached parties' collective agreement (CA") and sought compliance order in that regard - CA provided opportunities for development available and referred to empowered and diverse workforce - Applicants claimed respondent adopted minimalist approach to training and no benefit of developing to full potential - Review identified deficit in cleanings services - Respondent proposed to contract out cleaning services - DISPUTE - Parties disputed whether right to bargain under s 69H conferred right to bargain about contracting out - Whether under s 69M new employees would be entitled to same terms as existing employees - Cleaners" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -BREACH OF CONTRACT: CA included innovative and progressive clauses but respondent failed to do anything differently from what other employers would do. Obligations in CA required respondent to behave in quantitatively different way from employer bound by more commonplace obligations. Subclauses in question went further and seemed to impose aspirational goals for workforce. Insufficient effort by respondent to fulfil obligations. Report on cleaning services identified system failures by respondent. Authority did not order compliance but made declaration that respondent failed to fulfil contractual obligations. Authority did not conclude if respondent could contract out cleanings services, only that the process the respondent used to reach its provisional conclusion was wrong in principle because it did not take proper account of contractual obligations.;DISPUTE - Questions around s 69H hypothetical at current stage. Not appropriate to determine whether s 69H conferred right to bargain about contracting out. Section 69M question also hypothetical at current stage. Matters in dispute not taken any further. |
| Result | Application partially granted (breach of contract); Application dismissed (dispute); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s69F;ERA s69G;ERA s69H;ERA s69M;ERA s103A;ERA s159 |
| Cases Cited | Harris v The Warehouse Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 188;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Tan v Morningstar Institute of Education Ltd t/a Morningstar Preschool [2013] NZEmpC 82 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_467.pdf [pdf 212 KB] |