| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 8/06 |
| Hearing date | 13 Oct 2005 |
| Determination date | 26 January 2006 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | N Dines ; J Hambleton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | TPF Restaurants Ltd, t/a Burger King v The Autonomous Workers Union |
| Summary | PENALTY – BREACH OF GOOD FAITH – Parties had experienced considerable difficulties establishing professional working relationship – As result of mediation had established a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU") which set out way forward in the developing relationship - Alleged breach of s148 Employment Relationship Act 2000 by respondent disclosing in email to members matters that had been raised and discussed at a mediation conference – When applicant became aware of email, it responded by putting notice on restaurant notice board – Union member ("M")called at premises with purposes of getting copy of the notice – MoU had confirmed all communication was to be with Area Manager but respondent could not reach her – M left premises without copy of notice - Alleged breach of s21(2)(a) and (b) ERA by visiting applicant’s premises at times which were not reasonable and without regard to normal business operations – Alleged breach of good faith – MoU itself not within the terms of s148, but any debate or discussion between parties which gave rise to agreed terms of MoU did and must remain confidential – Some matters in email were issues existing and discussed by parties prior to mediation, others were discussed within the terms of s148 – Not accepted that removal of confidentiality clause in the Mediation Service’s standard template for a settlement agreement allowed respondent to take course it did in email to members - Distribution of email was limited - Applicant was entitled to question behaviour of respondent – However, posting of staff announcement on board puzzling since email only small number of its staff were union members – Applicant could have addressed inflammatory statements in email directly with respondent rather than going to Authority – Visit by M to collect copy of staff announcement breached MoU – Respondent responsible for two breaches of MoU – Breaches relatively restrictive in their effects and fell short of breaches of respondent’s obligations in good faith – Declined to award penalties – Directed that respondent formally apologise in writing to applicant and that apology was to include retraction of allegations in email – Parties directed to return to mediation to refine and make more explicit the terms of the MoU - COSTS - Costs in favour of applicant $450" |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Directed to mediation ; Costs in favour of applicant ($450) |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s21(2)(a);ERA s21(2)(b);ERA s148;ERA s148(6) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 8_06.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |