| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 25/06 |
| Hearing date | 23 Sep 2005 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2006 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | T Cleary ; H White |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Epic Packaging Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc |
| Summary | BARGAINING - Parties disagreed about whether respondent could initiate bargaining (in terms of s42 Employment Relations Act 2000) in relation to possible joinder of applicant as subsequent party to multi employer collective agreement (MECA") – Whether notice clearly identified intended coverage of agreement – Reference to “employer in the Plastics Industry” - Term “plastics industry” needed to be defined or identified in some other way before it could be said that proposed coverage had been identified and whether flexible packaging fell within it – Notice did not clearly identify proposed coverage – Applicant alleged that the terms of the MECA were already set and in such circumstances there could be no bargaining between the parties – Respondent relied on variations clause in CEA – Whether were matters to be bargained in relation to proposed joinder – Whether the bargaining notice or any similar notice in the future served or might serve to initiate bargaining in terms of s42 – Applicant alleged that it could not be coerced or compelled to enter into MECA as a subsequent party since in such circumstances it could have no influence over terms and conditions – Were terms over which to bargain – Not accepted that applicant simply being asked to join existing MECA on take it or leave it basis – The bargaining process proposed to be initiated was genuine and in good faith as the terms of the bargaining between the parties had yet to be set – The activity initiated by the respondent was in fact negotiations of terms and conditions of a transaction (bargaining) and in the absence of specific provisions for bargaining in joinder situations, was accepted that the bargaining provisions set out in s32-59 applied – Nothing inherently wrong in law or contrary to common sense about applying the bargaining provisions of the ERA to present situation – Noted that conclusions on this point were derived from particular circumstances of present case – Had there been no mechanism for negotiation of site specific schedule of variations, or had the agreement of the respondent not been required for joinder of a subsequent employer party a different conclusion may have resulted – Notice may serve to initiate bargaining in relation to the joinder of the applicant company to MECA" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s42;ERA s47;ERA s49;ERA s56;ERA s56A |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 25_06.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |