| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 225/08 |
| Hearing date | 24 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 30 June 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | B Manning, A Paton ; P Chemis, M Donovan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Resident Doctors Association v Auckland District Health Board & Ors |
| Other Parties | Bay of Plenty, Canterbury, Capital & Coast, Counties Manukau, Hawkes Bay, Hutt, Lakes, Marlborough, Midcentral, Nelson, Northland, Otago, South Canterbury, Southland, Tairawhiti, Taranaki, Waikato, Wairarapa, Waitemata, West Coast, Whanganui District Health Boards |
| Summary | BARGAINING - GOOD FAITH - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Operation of s32(1)(e) and s34 Employment Relations Act 2000 regarding provision of information during bargaining - Parties bargaining for MECA - Respondents claimed offer consistent with settlements with other health professionals - Applicant’s request for details of other settlements declined - Sought order information be provided and declaration respondents breached good faith obligations - Requirement to provide information to support claims not limited to information which positively confirmed assertion - Taken to mean all information available to party that would verify or disprove assertion or response to assertion - Both decision to ask for information and decision to refer information to reviewer required to be for objectively identifiable reasons - Respondents contended requested information not reasonably necessary to substantiate claims - Even if ‘narrow’ exposition of claim accepted, respondents ‘opened the door’ regarding consistency and ‘broad’ range of information could be required for applicant to respond - Suggestion respondents could withdraw claim which might require them to provide information that might not support their position did not accord with general good faith obligations or statutory scheme - Respondents had not met good faith obligations under s32(1)(e) to provide requested information - Applicant entitled to compliance order - Information relating to settlements with nurses and senior doctors to be provided - Respondent submitted information confidential - Respondents to comply by providing requested information to a mutually agreed independent reviewer - JURISDICTION - Authority had jurisdiction to ensure compliance with good faith provisions in collective bargaining - Jurisdiction under s32 and s34 related to conduct of parties in bargaining rather than content of bargaining - Jurisdiction did not extend to exercising powers, functions or duties of independent reviewer under ss34(5) and (6) - Authority could determine issues around reasonable necessity of information requested but could not resolve question of whether party providing information had reasonably considered information should go to independent reviewer and be treated as confidential - For reviewer to decide whether some or all information provided should be treated as confidential |
| Result | Application granted in part ; Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Good Faith |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a);ERA s4(1)(b);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s31(d);ERA s32(1)(e);ERA s34(2);ERA s34(3);ERA s34(4);ERA s34(5);ERA s34(6);ERA s34(7);ERA s137;ERA s161(1)(f);ERA s162 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 225_08.pdf [pdf 64 KB] |