| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Wellington 95 |
| Hearing date | 29-Jun-17 |
| Determination date | 29 September 2017 |
| Member | M Loftus |
| Representation | P Cranney, C McNamara ; J Holden, N Lucie-Smith |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Public Service Association Te Pukenga Here Tikanga Mahi v Lieutenant General Tim Keating - Chief of New Zealand Defence Force |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Applicant claimed subject to unfair bargaining – Whether New Zealand Defence Force (“NZDF”) breached obligations of good faith by not bargaining with Public Service Association (“PSA”) members covered by a Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance requiring respondent to bargain wages |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;BARGAINING: Applicant claimed 2010 split in NZDF’s members into two categories; One membership (B) would keep CEA pay-rates and would be controlled by employer, and other (C) would have lower salaries but would retain additional terms and conditions. Applicant claimed 2010 process undermined collective agreement, bargaining and unions. This would mean new employees take higher rate and no collective agreement. Overtime this would mean many non-salary conditions diminish in scope and unions reduce in size. Therefore, PSA highlighted that by 2016 bargaining process new union members of membership B were aware that pay system was not delivering adequate pay outcomes. At this time applicant requested negotiation of salary arrangements for its members. Applicant sought a bargained outcome in respect of wages in accordance with s4 and s32 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”). Applicant sought an agreed salary scale in CEA. Respondent refused to negotiate and later affirmed that the current arrangement should remain. Respondent relied on the 2010 provision which excluded salary scales from bargaining. Authority found respondent’s approach fundamentally flawed. The 2010 provision does not have indefinite life and nature of bargaining entitles applicant to propose changes to a provision. Respondent cannot simply disagree with inclusion of a scale. Also an employment agreement cannot ignore an employee’s perspective where the content of a CEA is determined by what the parties agree. Applicant entitled to at least discussion about how wages are to be agreed and recorded. Unfair bargaining. COMPLIANCE ORDER: Respondent failed to give consideration of employee’s perspective in relation to the CEA and wage bargaining. Compliance ordered. |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Bargaining |
| Statutes | Defence Act 1990 s45;Defence Act 1990 s45(5);Defence Act 1990 s69;ERA s4;ERA s32;ERA s 32(1)(c);ERA s52(3)(c);ERA s53;ERA s174E(b)(ii) |
| Cases Cited | First Union v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 230 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Wellington_95.pdf [pdf 116 KB] |