| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 196/06 |
| Hearing date | 27 Feb 2006 |
| Determination date | 07 June 2006 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | AM McInally ; J O'Connell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Transfield Services E&T (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | BARGAINING - GOOD FAITH – Negotiations for collective employment agreement – Number of problems arose out of bargaining – Parties reached agreement in relation to issue of wage increase before determination issued – Applicant alleged respondent and Telecom (who respondent provided services for) made agreement about wage increases for respondent’s employees – Alleged misleading/potentially misleading statements about engagement with Telecom – First allegedly misleading communication at worst not doing any more than communicating statement of fact or opinion reasonably held – Second communication reasonably capable of raising question about nature of discussions between respondent and Telecom – In a sense respondent misstated matters when it asserted that it had no ability to seek funding for wage increases from Telecom and a following letter fell short of correcting misstatement – Authority accepted that respondent and Telecom did not bargain directly about wage increases – Therefore, despite deficiencies in respondent’s explanation, not accepted union was misled – If was any breach by respondent it arose out of those deficiencies – Authority did not consider it necessary to make determinations union sought in any but the limited form as set out in determination – Whether failure to recognise role of union by publications/letters – First alleged publication unusual in that was prepared before bargaining process began (although circulated after it), was not intended to address the bargaining and was promulgated during a time when law was new and yet to be settled – No need to make further orders than determination as set out – Even if letter to staff undermined/likely to undermine bargaining, applicant did not take opportunities to respond to draft letter and that detracted from subsequent accusations of breaching good faith – References to upcoming strike action in publications should have distinguished between questions about genuinely operational matters and wider questions about effect and application of strike – Latter were appropriately the province of the union, and failure to make distinction or mention the union was capable of being misleading – As to remedies, again, Authority believed the determination should suffice and was no need to make further order – Respondent engaged other workers to do striking workers’ work – Breach of s97 ERA – Respondent ordered to pay penalty of $1,000 – Not appropriate to order compliance |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Penalty in favour of applicant ($1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(3);ERA s5;ERA s32;ERA s32(1)(d);ERA s97;ERA s97(6);ERA s137(1)(a)(ii);ERA s137(2) |
| Cases Cited | Association of University Staff Inc v The Vice-Chancellor of The University of Auckland [2005] 1 ERNZ 224;Christchurch City Council and Anor v Southern Local Government Officers Union Inc and Anor [2005] 1 ERNZ 666 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 196_06.pdf [pdf 80 KB] |