| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 197/09 |
| Hearing date | 2 Jun 2009 - 3 Jun 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 22 June 2009 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | P Skelton ; A McInally |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Steel Ltd v NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE – First issue, whether applicant entitled to revert employees to day work under collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Second issue, whether applicant required under s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) to consult respondent when exercising powers under CEA – Third issue, what remedies available to respondent if s4 ERA breached – Applicant reverted shift employees to day work without consulting respondent union - Applicant claimed unfettered right to revert employees under CEA – Claimed changes did not constitute “restructuring” under CEA therefore affected employees not entitled to redundancy compensation – Claimed s4(1A)(C) ERA not applicable as applicant’s decision would not adversely affect continuity of employment – Claimed s4(4)(c) and (d) ERA not breached as no misleading conduct – Claimed interpretation of CEA consistent with “existing custom and practice” - Respondent argued changes constituted “restructuring” as affected employees’ take home pay reduced by 30 percent – Claimed applicant obligated to consult with respondent under CEA and s4 ERA – Claimed decision inconsistent with custom and practice therefore dispute settlement clause applicable – Authority found applicant exercised lawful right under CEA – Found reduction in take home pay due to reduced work hours and not reduction in employment terms and conditions to constitute “restructuring” – Found no entitlement to redundancy compensation – Found decision consistent with custom and practice therefore dispute settlement clause not applicable - Found applicant obligated to consult respondent and affected employees – Question answered - REMEDIES - Respondent sought order applicant consult with respondent union – Applicant claimed consultation must be short due to financial strains - Authority ordered applicant to immediately commence 28 day consultation process pursuant to s4 ERA and parties’ interim agreement – Applicant entitled to give 4 weeks notice to affected employees - Order made |
| Result | Question answered ; Order made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s4(4)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland City Council v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc [2003] 2 ERNZ 386;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v National Distribution Union Inc [2002] 1 ERNZ 239;New Zealand Nurses Union v Exceler Properties Ltd (t/a Cedar Manor Home and Hospital) [1989] 3 NZILR 299 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 197_09.pdf [pdf 62 KB] |