| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 314/07 |
| Hearing date | 18 Sep 2007 - 20 Sep 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 09 October 2007 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; A Caisley, R Larmer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Service and Food Workers' Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Respondent implemented plan to reorganise ground handling unit – “In-house solution” formulated by respondent and unions representing majority of ground handling employees – Averted outsourcing of work – Applicant and two other unions negotiated Collective Employment Agreement (CEA") with respondent – Maximum effectiveness required all three unions change CEAs – Other 2 unions made changes but applicant unable to get consent of members – Respondent bound by terms and conditions in original Collective Employment Agreement "CEA" – Prevented respondent gaining full benefit of “In-house solution” – Respondent wanted greater uniformity of terms and conditions across the three collective agreements, particularly on matters which significantly influenced labour costs and productivity – Bargaining provisions of ERA did not require applicant to align CEA with those of other unions covering same work - Applicant claimed new employees not advised of existence of CEA, not given copy of document and led to believe CEA expired – Letters to new employees failed to expressly acknowledge could join applicant – Other unions referred to by name six times, applicant just once, in separate part of letter in offhanded way – Letter expressly stated applicant did not have current CEA and gave impression applicant not open to membership – Representations incorrect and likely to mislead average employee – CEA lifeblood of union and its members – Incorrect representation CEA no longer effective serious and damaging misstatement - Investigation suspended to give applicant opportunity to take corrective action - Applicant took issue with “fundamental term” of Individual Employment Agreement new employees required to accept - Required employees to agree to work new rosters or respondent entitled to dismiss them – Term inconsistent with applicants CEA – Respondent contended if new employee bound by applicants CEA it could invoke fundamental term to end employment – Authority found “fundamental term” had no effect in preventing new employees from joining applicant and having terms and conditions of CEA applied to their work in full – Compliance as sought by applicant not available at this stage – No indication any new employee who had joined applicant not employed on terms and conditions of CEA – However, if situation arose compliance likely to be appropriate remedy" |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(b);ERA s9;ERA s10;ERA s53;ERA s56(1);ERA s56(1)(b);ERA s57;ERA s61;ERA s62(2);ERA s63(2);ERA s63(2)(b);ERA s63(3);ERA s137;ERA s138(1);ERA s160(3);ERA s162;ERA s238 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 314_07.pdf [pdf 53 KB] |