| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 4/01 |
| Determination date | 22 January 2001 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Waterfront Workers Union Inc, Auckland Branch v Ports of Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | BARGAINING - Expired collective employment contract - Bargaining initiated for new agreement - Whether notices initiating bargaining were lawful and valid - Whether single or multiple agreements - Notices from union and employer were both valid - Coverage to be determined by negotiation between parties |
| Abstract | This was a determination relating to a dispute over bargaining for a new collective agreement investigated by the Employment Relations Authority.;Both the union and the company were parties to The Ports of Auckland Plant Services Collective Employment Contract which expired on 17 December 1999. On 7 July 2000 the parties signed an interim heads of agreement which provided for the establishment of a working party to work on the contract or contracts applicable from 17 December 2000. The working party was to consult with union members and management; be responsible for making a joint proposal concerning the type, style, and content of the contract or contracts; and be responsible for arranging the negotiation and conclusion of the 'agreed to Employment Contract/Contracts, type, style and content' within specified timeframes.;During the first meeting of the working party the union representatives made it clear that the union sought a single collective agreement for its employees at the Ports of Auckland. However, the company sought separate agreements in respect of different business units or divisions.;On 10 October 2000 the union issued a notice to the respondent initiating bargaining for a single document. The intended coverage clause was defined with reference to a series of occupations at the waterfront. On 20 October 2000 the Ports of Auckland issued four separate notices initiating bargaining. The intended coverage clauses were defined with reference four lists of named employees.;The issue the Authority was asked to determine was whether the four notices dated 20 October 2000 initiating bargaining with the union, which the Ports of Auckland issued, were lawful and valid given that the union had issued a notice dated 10 October 2000 to the Ports of Auckland initiating bargaining. The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent to comply with the notice of 10 October 2000 as opposed to the 20 October 2000 notices.;HELD: (1) As a matter of the application of the Employment Relations Act, as opposed to a matter of tactics or negotiation, the union would not be entitled to take an absolute view that their coverage clause was the coverage clause for the document and thus to regard the clause as not capable of negotiation. It was clearly a matter for negotiation between the parties whichever of the notices they believed they were addressing.;(2) The respondent was entitled to issue the notices it did, although the practical effect only highlighted the fact that there was a serious issue between the parties on the matter of coverage. The parties must address coverage as part of the normal negotiating process, otherwise neither of them was entitled to claim that the coverage that party sought had any kind of priority over or right to exclude the claim of the other. |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Cases Cited | NZ Air Line Pilots Association IUOW v Gray [1989] 2 NZILR 454 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |