| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 79/08 |
| Hearing date | 29 Oct 2007 - 4 Dec 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 07 March 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | L Yukich ; G Service |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Eastern Bay Independent industrial Workers Union Inc v ABB |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Respondent party to two separate collective employment agreements (“CEA”) – First CEA with applicant and another union – Second CEA with EPMU – As CEAs due to expire, respondent invited applicant and EPMU to enter preliminary discussions to obtain views on consolidating bargaining to achieve one CEA – Request to consolidate bargaining declined by applicant and EPMU – Common ground applicant and EPMU preferred to do own negotiations – Negotiations settled with applicant before EPMU – Applicant sought order from Authority requiring respondent comply with clause of CEA – Applicant also contended respondent failed to act in good faith – Further claim that respondent passed on same terms and conditions to EPMU as those settled with applicant – Applicant claimed terms passed on with intent to and undermined CEA – Authority noted not breach of CEA to pass on benefits arrived at through collective bargaining – Clause in CEA required agreement of applicant before passing on could occur – Authority found requirement inconsistent with s59C Employment Relations Act (“ERA”) to extent disregarded passing on as prima facie lawful and agreement of parties not required – Authority found individual terms of settlement agreed to by applicant and EPMU contained variations in wording but provided essentially same benefits – Applicant claimed 14 terms and conditions negotiated with respondent passed on to EPMU which were not raised by EPMU at outset of negotiations –Authority satisfied genuine reasons for identical provisions – EPMU delegate argued during negotiations with respondent proposals and counter proposals made in attempt to find common ground – Applicant also alleged terms included in EMPU CEA without negotiation were copied from applicant’s CEA – Authority accepted respondent used previously prepared applicant document as template for drafting EPMU terms of settlement – Authority satisfied while outcomes of bargaining similar, CEAs result of genuine and robust bargaining process and not automatically passed on – Found evidence did not support breach of good faith – Authority found pursuant to s59C ERA not breach of good faith for employer to conclude CEA containing provision same or substantially same as term in another binding CEA – Authority noted s59C(2) ERA made breach of good faith where provisions passed on with intention to undermine and did undermine other CEA – Authority satisfied passing on of provisions from applicant CEA to EPMU CEA did not breach s59C ERA – Application dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Bargaining |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s59C |
| Cases Cited | National Distribution Union v General Distributors Ltd [2007] 1 ERNZ 120 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 79_08.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |