| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 371/05 |
| Hearing date | 9 Sep 2005 - 20 Sep 2005 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 21 September 2005 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | J Pearson ; T Kennedy, B Banks |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Asure New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Public Service Association and Ors |
| Other Parties | Sanderson |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Applicant sought declaration as to whether 15 meat inspectors it employed at AFFCO’s Horotiu site could be required to work in a rebuilt plant where they would have to share facilities with AFFCO staff, including lockers, showers and break rooms – PSA representative advised this was not acceptable to the meat inspectors – Alleged inspectors needed separate facilities to carry out work safely and free from interference by meat company workers and managers – Alleged were at risk of intimidation because their work could interfere with meat company production and meat workers’ bonuses – Bargaining for new collective agreement – PSA sought that its claim for separate facilities be included as an express term of any renewed collective agreement - Section 161(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 – Parties would not merely be having their respective rights determined by the Authority if the application was considered further, rather Authority would be acting as arbiter in settling new terms – Parties were effectively attempting to bring their bargaining to the Authority’s table – No information before the Authority to suggest matter had reached level of difficulty contemplated in facilitation of bargaining provisions – Authority could not assist further with application |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ERA s129;ERA s161(1)(a);ERA s161(1)(r);ERA s161(2);Meat Regulations 1969 |
| Cases Cited | Canterbury Spinners Ltd v Vaughan [2002] 1 ERNZ 255 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 371_05.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |