| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 290/05 |
| Hearing date | 31 Jul 2003 - 1 Aug 2003 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 July 2005 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | T Wilton ; R Towner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v APN New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - GOOD FAITH - Parties' collective agreement provided two mechanisms to allow employees to be paid more than pay scale - One permitted employees to withdraw onto separate individual agreement without giving up union membership (clause 4.3") - Other allowed employees to move with employer's consent from wages to salary based remuneration while remaining under coverage of collective agreement ("clause 6.1") - Applicant alleged respondent adopted blanket policy that it would not use clause 6.1 at all - Example of one employee ("W") who in 2002 sought pay rise above pay scale and was told respondent's policy was not to entertain salaries in collective agreement, beyond small number it had agreed to grandfather - Applicant sought declaration that respondent had breached duty of good faith - In question of law referred from Authority, Employment Court found that clause 4.3 was inconsistent with Employment Relations Act 2000 and this was upheld by Court of Appeal - Court of Appeal's decision resolved essence of problem - However applicant wanted factual questions answered - Respondent's response to W amounted to unequivocal, blanket policy that there would be no further "salarisation" pursuant to clause 6.1 - Little evidence policy pursued after that - Respondent could not in good faith refuse to consider use of clause 6.1 - In effect W unfairly and unreasonably required to withdraw from collective, which was breach of good faith - Applicant alleged respondent breached duty of good faith by agreeing to inclusion of clause 6.1 without intention of ever using it - No evidence respondent behaved in misleading and deceptive manner in bargaining - Newspaper staff" |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s56;ERA s177;ERA Part 3 |
| Cases Cited | Carter Holt Harvey Limited v National Distribution Union Incorporated [2002] 1 ERNZ 239;NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v APN New Zealand Ltd [2003] 2 ERNZ 11 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 290_05.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |