| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 288/08 |
| Determination date | 12 August 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; P Swarbrick, B Edwards |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | National Distribution Union Inc v The Warehouse Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | The Warehouse Cellars Ltd, The Warehouse Peoples Union Inc |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether applicant had standing to challenge legality and therefore enforceability of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) between first, second and third respondents - Applicant claimed employment relationships between: first respondent and its employees who were members of applicant; applicant and first respondent; and third respondent and affected members of applicant were evidence of sufficient interest in matters before Authority to give applicant standing - Applicant submitted contrary to plain meaning of s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) and public policy, as well as unnecessary complication, to say applicant could not bring proceedings in own name when its members’ interests were affected - First and second respondents submitted applicant did not have sufficient, or any interest, to support claims that CEA unlawful - Respondents claimed applicant not party to CEA, not involved in bargaining for CEA, CEA created no employment relationship between applicant and respondents, applicant not prevented from bargaining to conclude a collective agreement with the first or second respondents, and issue before Authority should be brought by person other than applicant - Authority found while s18 ERA entitled applicant to represent its members, did not entitle it to issue proceedings in its own name when did not have standing in those proceedings - Found employment relationship problem did not relate to or arise out of employment relationship between parties to proceedings - Found arose out of or related to employment relationship between applicant’s members and respondents - Found no evidence CEA prejudiced applicant - Found applicant did not have standing - Application declined - Authority found issue could be resolved by application being bought by affected worker parties |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(2);ERA s4(2)(a);ERA s4(2)(b);ERA s4(2)(c);ERA s5;ERA s18 |
| Cases Cited | NZ Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Authorities Employees IUOW v Cityline (NZ) Ltd t/a Cityline Hutt Valley & Anor [2007] ERNZ 667;Service and Food Workers Union Ng Ringa Tota Inc v Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd unreported, Colgan, CJ, 23 Aug 2007, AC 50/07 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 288_08.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |