| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 369/09 |
| Hearing date | 28 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 20 October 2009 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | L Yukich ; G Service |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Electrical Union Inc and Ors v Transfield Services (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Other Parties | Croft & Ors |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Good faith – Compliance order – Application for removal – Applicants sought respondent’s compliance with s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Secondly sought interim order respondent desist implementing restructuring until concluded meaningful consultation with applicants and until Employment Court (“EC”) addressed substantive matter – Thirdly sought order respondent provide applicants with all relevant information prior to commencing consultation – Fourthly sought order removing matters to EC – Respondent argued undertook consultation obligations in good faith and no breach – Argued all relevant information provided to employees – Argued not appropriate for Authority to make interim order preventing proceeding with planned restructure until consultation concluded – Authority found extraordinary email sent to respondent from applicant’s counsel advising seeking Anton Pillar order if information not provided – Found first applicant orchestrated separate meeting with members at time of respondent’s planned meeting – Found at time of investigation meeting no evidence respondent intended to terminate employment of employees where position not superfluous – Authority found had jurisdiction to grant interim orders of nature sought by applicant – Application to remove matter on all grounds declined – Authority found second applicant failed to be responsive, failed to access readily available information, and opportunity to comment on information – However, Authority disinclined to conclude breach of good faith provisions by second applicants – Found no breach of good faith provisions by respondent against first or second applicants – Found no evidence respondent had not complied with employment agreements – Found applicant’s unprovoked threats of legal action not actions of organisation wishing to consult in meaningful manner – Found actions of first applicant not conducive to good faith relationship – Applications declined |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s61(2);ERA s161;ERA s137;ERA s137(2);ERA s4(1A)(c)(i) |
| Cases Cited | Electrical Union Inc and Ors v Transfield Services (New Zealand) Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 12 October 2009, AA 360/09;Talley v United Food and Chemical Workers Union of New Zealand [1993] 2 ERNZ 360;The New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey [2002] 1 ERNZ 597 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 369_09.pdf [pdf 834 KB] |