| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 67/06 |
| Hearing date | 27 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 24 April 2006 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Cranney ; T Cleary |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | The Service and Food Workers' Union Nga Ringa Tota and Ors v Heinz Wattie's Ltd |
| Other Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union, National Distribution Union |
| Summary | BARGAINING - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Whether terms of settlement reached in bargaining binding - Parties had a collective employment agreement (CEA") which covered crop-based fresh produce seasonal employees at Hastings plant and frozen food employees at Christchurch and Hastings plants - Respondent's mandate document provided that terms of settlement had to be signed off by respondent's executive to be ratified by respondent - Parties reached bargaining process agreement ("BPA") - BPA included provision that parties to negotiations would have authority to reach agreement, subject only to ratification process for applicants and respondent, and any limitations on authority in respect of ratification processes would be outlined immediately prior to initial commencement of negotiations - Also provision that terms of settlement would not be taken as agreed record until signed off by both/all parties - Applicants denied or could not recall that respondent's Employee Relations Manager ("R") advised them of respondent's ratification process - Parties reached terms of settlement - Executive member advised R he would not approve settlement for crop-based production employees - R did not convey this to applicants and signed Terms of Settlement - Applicants' members ratified terms of settlement - Steps taken by respondent to put in place remuneration increases to all applicants' members except crop-based employees - Several months later respondent informed applicants its position that there was no agreement and it had not ratified the agreement - Applicants alleged they never really had any knowledge of authority for respondent but understood it was R who held authority/mandate to sign binding terms of settlement - Respondent submitted R had no actual authority to commit respondent to CEA with respondent's approval - Remarkable failure by R to tell applicants that respondent had not approved terms of settlement - Respondent came close to being bound by R's conduct - However evidence did not establish that R did not say something about respondent's ratification at commencement of negotiations - Meant Authority could not make orders for compliance as sought in regard to terms of settlement - Respondent could not be bound by terms of settlement unless they were rectified, and threshold not reached for Authority to make such a finding - Although R signed terms of settlement, knowing that approval had not been given, and that terms as agreed were within respondent's mandate, the provisions of the BPA requiring approval from the executive did not support R having ostensible authority to bind respondent to CEA - Approval that R was required to obtain meant the terms of settlement could not bind the respondent" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ECA s16;ERA s32;ERA s51 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Engineering Union Inc v Shell Todd Oil Services (NZ) Ltd [1994] 2 ERNZ 536 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 67_06.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |