| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 49/08 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; K Smith |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | National Distribution Union Inc. v Lane Walker Rudkin Manufacturing Ltd |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith provisions of Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) by not bargaining through applicant – Respondent denied breaching ERA by bargaining directly or indirectly with applicant’s members – Respondent argued not “bargaining” and alternatively issue already concluded by undertaking conduct would not be repeated – Authority found notice sent by respondent to applicant’s members did not concern itself with “bargaining” as defined in ERA – Found employers must be able to communicate with employees while bargaining being undertaken – Found no breach of good faith as respondent not engaged with employees directly to negotiate – Authority found respondent’s notice a statement of fact and did not contain any offer, counter offer, or proposal – Found alternatively if breach occurred, respondent promptly provided undertaking which ought to preclude Authority from taking further steps – DISPUTE – Authority determined interpretation of clause in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) in context of increased statutory minimum entitlement for annual leave to four weeks – Applicant claimed CEA entitled members to additional weeks leave over and above statutory minimum after six years continuous service – Respondent argued no intention staff covered by CEA would automatically obtain annual leave increase after passage of Holidays Act 2003 – Authority found clause in CEA properly construed an enhancement not an addition to basic provision – Found entitlement of employees was to total of four weeks not five weeks – Found conclusion supported by clear words in CEA and evidence from bargaining context – Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003;ERA s4;ERA s32(1)(d)(ii);ERA s32(1)(d)(i);ERA s5;Holidays Act 2003 s3;Holidays Act 2003 s6;Holidays Act 2003 s6(2) |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation;Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] 1 ERNZ 1005 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 49_08.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |