Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 363/09
Determination date 13 October 2009
Member D King
Representation P Cranney ; P Swarbrick, C Reaich
Location Auckland
Parties National Distribution Union Inc and Ors v The Warehouse Ltd and Anor
Other Parties Heihei, Macdonald, Snell, O'Neil, Aholelei, Kurry, The Warehouse Peoples' Union Inc
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondents argued first applicant had no standing to bring proceedings – Second applicants who were previously members of second respondent when previous Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) negotiated claimed CEA not lawfully entered and therefore not binding – Respondents claimed first applicant estopped from bringing proceedings because current proceedings subject to principles of res judicata – First applicant and first respondent signed new CEA – Parties disagreed about which members CEA covered – Second respondent argued second applicants estopped from bringing claim because at all material times were members of first applicant and therefore bound by previous decision where found first applicant had no standing – Authority found no employment relationship between first applicant and respondents – Found no standing and Authority had no jurisdiction – Found plaintiff would have standing if could demonstrate sufficient interest in matter – Found second applicants had interest in applicability of CEA and had employment relationship with respondents – Second applicants not privies to new CEA and not estopped from bringing proceedings
Result Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s4(2);ERA s4(2)(a);ERA s5;ERA s120;ERA s129
Cases Cited NDU v The Warehouse Ltd unreported, M Urlich, 12 Aug 2008, AA 288/08;New Zealand Building Trades Union v New Zealand Federated Furniture etc IUOW [1991] ERNZ 331;Shiels v Blakeley [1986] 2 NZLR 262
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: aa 363_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB]