| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 178/05 |
| Determination date | 21 November 2005 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | T Wilton ; R Webby |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union and Anor v Assa Abloy New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Marks |
| Summary | DISPUTE – First applicant and respondent parties to collective employment agreement with running term 1 July 2004 to 31 January 2006 – Second applicant employed on 1 July 2004 and made redundant 31 October 2004 – Was bargaining from May 2004 but agreement not reached until 4 February 2005 - Further term was wage increase of 3.75% - Whether employees who were employed as at 1 July 2004 but left before 4 February 2005 should be entitled to increased rates – Section 52 Employment Relations Act 2000 discussed – Consistent with scheme of Act for parties to be able to agree to have CA come into force on date before the date the last party signed it because otherwise the extent of its enforceability might be limited by one party delaying signing agreement – That could not have been intention of legislature – ERA gave primacy to date agreed by parties (date of last signature was clearly a default provision) – Was consistent with s54 – Provision of CA not inconsistent with ERA – Effect of s52(2) was to simply provide parties with more options regarding the backdating of provisions – If respondent was correct in assertion that workers in question could not claim increase because were not employees when agreement reached, then no former employee could enforce rights under a CA which was clearly not consistent with the thrust of the ERA – In the alternative, the wage clause was capable of enforcement from 1 July 2004 – Parties did not exclude or include explicitly employees in question – Nothing to exclude workers in second applicant’s position from benefits of CA – Given that CA was in force from 1 July 2004 would be inconsistent with s56 for workers in second applicant’s position not to be able to enforce new wages provisions – Dispute answered in favour of applicants |
| Result | Dispute answered in favour of applicants ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ERA s52;ERA s52(1);ERA s52(2);ERA s54;ERA s54(3);ERA s56 |
| Cases Cited | Butler and Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd unreported, Couch J, 14 October 2005, AC 57/05 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 178_05.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |