| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 313/06 |
| Determination date | 05 October 2006 |
| Member | K Raureti |
| Representation | D Fleming ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | National Distribution Union v Spotless Services Ltd |
| Summary | BARGAINING - Applicant initiated bargaining for Multi Employer Collective Agreement (MECA") - Intended coverage included two cleaners employed by respondent – Respondent party to NZ Cleaning Contractors MECA with a different union (Service & Food Workers Union) – Coverage of that MECA included work done by cleaners but they were members of applicant, not SFWU – Respondent regarded NZ Cleaning Contractors agreement as “applicable collective agreement” for its cleaners and argued applicant could not initiate bargaining earlier than 60 days before expiry of that agreement – Whether NZ Cleaning Contractors agreement was “applicable collective agreement” for purposes of s41 Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA") – Applicant argued “applicable collective agreement” related to agreement between intended parties to bargaining and collective agreement could only bind union which was party to it – Applicant claimed not uncommon for employers to be party to separate agreements with two or more unions with potentially overlapping coverage – Applicant submitted s5 ERA definition of “applicable collective agreement” clear, it was collective agreement between relevant union and employer and nothing in context of initiation of bargaining required departure from that meaning – Respondent claimed there was already an “applicable collective agreement” between 'a union' (SFWU) and 'an employer' (respondent) - When new cleaners employed respondent had to advise them of collective agreement and ability to join SFWU (s62 ERA) – Claimed authorising another union to commence bargaining would potentially expose respondent to numerous collective agreement negotiations with various unions – Respondent argued this ran counter to objective of building productive employment relationships, undermined NZ Cleaning Contractors agreement and affected relationship between parties – Respondent submitted s41(1) ERA envisaged a “greenfield situation” where an employer is not party to a collective agreement which would cover one or more employees if they joined the appropriate union – While employer obligations arose out of s62 ERA, those obligations did not arise out of there being an “applicable collective agreement” – Applying interpretation pursuant to s5 ERA Authority concluded there was no “applicable collective agreement” between applicant and respondent – Question answered in favour of applicant - COSTS - Matter determined on the papers - Parties agreed costs to lie where they fall" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a);ERA s3(b);ERA s5;ERA s41;ERA s41(1);ERA s41(5);ERA s42;ERA s45;ERA s50;ERA s56;ERA s56(1)(b)(i);ERA s56(1)(b)(ii);ERA s56(1)(b)(iii);ERA s56A;ERA s57;ERA s58;ERA s62;ERA s62(2);ERA s62(3);ERA s246;ERA Part 5;ILO Convention 87;ILO Convention 89 |
| Cases Cited | Epic Packaging Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc [2006] 1 ERNZ 617;NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v The Christchurch Press, a division of Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 288;NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union v Timaru Herald, a division of Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (formerly a division of INL Publishing Ltd) [2005] 1 ERNZ 30;Pacific Flight Catering v Fitzpatrick [2003] 1 ERNZ 192;Australasian Correctional Management Ltd v Corrections Association of New Zealand (Inc) [2002] 1 ERNZ 175 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 250 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 313_06.pdf [pdf 115 KB] |