| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 148 |
| Hearing date | 12-May-15 - 13-May-15, 16-Jun-15 - 17-Jun-15, 27-Aug-15 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 08 October 2015 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | A Sharma ; P Kiely, M King |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild Inc v Sealord Group Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed compliance with obligation to consult for Catch Plan (“CP”) increases and alignment with Catch Pay Plans (“CPP”) pursuant to Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Whether respondents made genuine effort to accommodate views of consulted – Whether contractual or statutory duty existed – Whether decreasing bonus rates lawful – Applicants claimed respondents breached good faith – Parties disputed interpretation of coverage clause in CEA – Whether ‘skipper’ fell within coverage clause in CEA – Skipper |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Respondents engaged in genuine, meaningful consultations with applicants in accordance with CEA. Applicants given reasonable opportunity to respond. Respondents had proper grounds for increasing CP tonnage.Applicants’ right to catch not through implied term or oral agreement. Respondents not required to consult with applicants for plan to align CP with CPP, as within scope of right. Respondents had good faith obligations to ensure applicants aware of CP effects upon bonus rates. Respondents’ consultation obligations discharged solely by consultation with skippers. No breaches of good faith.‘Skipper’ role unique, does not fall within crew or management definition. Parties expressly agreed ‘skipper’ no longer bound by CEA. Skippers not covered by CEA. Questions answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s53;ERA s61;ERA s61(1);ERA s61(1)(b);Holidays Act 2003;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland City Council v NZ Public Service Association [2004] 2 NZLR 10 (CA), [2003] 2 ERNZ 386;Communication and Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecome New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429 (EmpC), 4 NZELC 98,225;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR 671 (CA);Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini O Aotearoa v Hampton [2002] 1 ERNZ 491 (EmpC);Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Rail and Maritime Transport Union [2013] NZEmpC 224;Progressive Meats Ltd v Pohio [2012] NZEmpC 103;New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Energex Ltd [2006] ERNZ 749 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 53 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_148.pdf [pdf 436 KB] |