| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 13 |
| Hearing date | 7 - 8 Dec 2015 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 18 February 2016 |
| Member | James Crichton |
| Representation | P Churchman ; C Pidduck |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | The New Zealand Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Talley |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondents sought non-publication order against name, evidence and pleadings filed relating to second respondent – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance order requiring respondents to refrain from restricting union’s right to access workplace – Whether first respondent unlawfully restricted or frustrated union access to workplace – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for first respondent’s restrictions on union right to access workplace – Applicant sought penalty for second respondent aiding and abetting restriction on union right to access workplace – BARGAINING – DISPUTE– Whether collective bargaining precondition lawful – Meat worker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Second respondent’s involvement with first respondent well known. Name suppression order little practical effect. Application for second respondent’s name suppression order dismissed. Application for second respondent’s evidence and pleadings non-publication order granted.;COMPLIANCE ORDER: Authority’s previous finding on first respondent’s restriction on union access rights relevant. First respondent entitled to require union officials to gain written permission to access workplace. First respondent not entitled to require union officials to be accompanied by manager during workplace visits. First respondent unlawfully interfered with right of access. Compliance ordered.;PENALTY: First respondent unlawfully interfered with right of access. Union right to access statutory provision and penalty for aiding and abetting can only be awarded for breach of employment agreement. No jurisdiction to award penalty against second respondent. First respondent’s statutory breaches serious, disclose pattern of continuing conduct. Need for deterrence. $144,000 penalty appropriate.;BARGAINING – DISPUTE: First respondent had no legal basis to demand union membership evidence before bargaining. First respondent’s collective bargaining precondition unlawful. Question answered in favour of applicant. |
| Result | Applications granted (compliance order)(penalty) ; Penalty ($144,000)(first respondent)(payable to applicant) ; Compliance ordered ; Orders made ; Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s20;ERA s20A;ERA s21;ERA s21(2);ERA s21(2)(a);ERA s21(2)(b);ERA s22;ERA s23;ERA s24;ERA s134(2);ERA s136(2);ERA s137(3);ERA s160(1)(a);ERA Second Schedule cl10(2) |
| Cases Cited | H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 65 , [2014] ERNZ 733;New Zealand Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 138 , (2015) 10 NZELC 79-055;New Zealand Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 21;New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [2014] NZERA Christchurch 141;United Food & Chemical Workers Union of New Zealand v Talley [1992] 3 ERNZ 423 (EmpC);United Food IUOW v Talley [1992] 1 ERNZ 756 (LC);Duval v Sky City Auckland Ltd [1999] 1 ERNZ 15 (EmpC);Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd v National Distribution Union (Inc) [1995] 2 NZLR 280 (CA) [1995] 1 ERNZ 110 |
| Number of Pages | 32 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_13.pdf [pdf 3.2 MB] |