| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 131/08 |
| Hearing date | 12 Jun 2008 - 13 Jun 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 August 2008 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P Cranney ; E Hartdegen |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Unite! Union v MPA Investments Ltd t/a McDonalds Kaiapoi |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant recruited number of respondent’s employees - Respondent put up notice asking employee to see trainee manager (“H”) about resigning from applicant - Respondent failed to commence union fee deductions promptly - Following month most new members had resigned from applicant - Applicant claimed respondent breached ss7 and 11 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) by exerting undue influence intended to induce resignation from a Union - Respondent claimed simply provided information to employees about how to resign from union and sought to balance pressure thought applicant putting on employees to join applicant - Authority found while that may have been partial explanation for actions respondent’s notice went beyond simply providing information on how to resign from union - Found most of staff who H spoke to about union membership were vulnerable to influence from strong employers and might readily submit to influence - Found employees had no guaranteed days or hours of work and were young and inexperienced - Found H in position of significant influence over their work and respondent was part of large and powerful organisation - Found would not take much to cross line from lawful to unlawful influence amounting to interference with freedom of choice - Found notice comprised unlawful interference with employees’ freedom of choice - Found notice written with intention of inducing employees to resign from applicant - Found respondent’s undue influence did induce at least one employee to resign - Found respondent breached s7 and s11 ERA - GOOD FAITH - Applicant claimed respondent’s actions breached duty of good faith - Authority found breach of freedom of association provisions would inevitably constitute breach of good faith - However, applicant did not seek remedy for breach - No orders made - GOOD FAITH - Counterclaim - Respondent alleged applicant acted in bad faith over handling of employment problems against respondent and sought penalty - Authority found most of factual basis for complaint based on events connected to mediation and without prejudice communications - Found claim could not succeed without admissible evidence - Respondent’s claims effect of Wages Protection Act 1983 supported or required them to act as they did rejected |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(1)(b);ERA s7;ERA s11;ERA Part 3;Wages Protection Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Eketone v Alliance Textiles (NZ) Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 783;NZ Dairy Workers Union Inc v NZ Milk Products Ltd [2004] 1 ERNZ 376;New Zealand Educational Institute v State Services Commissioner [1997] ERNZ 381 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 131_08.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |