| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 60/09 |
| Hearing date | 7 Apr 2009 |
| Determination date | 12 May 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | T Wilton ; D Erickson |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and Ors v Telstra Clear Ltd |
| Other Parties | Fudakowski, King, Morgan, Hurring |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Breach of Good Faith – First issue whether first applicant gave 14 days notice of union meeting – Second issue whether first applicant made arrangements to ensure respondent’s business maintained during meeting – First applicant sent letter notifying respondent of union meeting 20 days before meeting – Respondent’s Contact Centre received letter 11 days before meeting – No evidence on why letter received late – First applicant union members formed 70 percent of respondent’s Contact Centre – First applicant advised respondent 23 members wanted to attend meeting – Respondents replied for business to be maintained, 5 members from Contact Centre could attend – Issue of inadequate notice raised – First applicant left attendance up to individual union members but recognised ceiling of 5 members - 9 members attended, 5 members paid – During staff members’ absence, customer service levels fell below internal standards – Authority found letter received by respondent 11 days before meeting but likely letter arrived in respondent’s internal mail system within time – Found respondent did not contact first applicant until 6 days before meeting, consistent with letter being received 14 days before meeting - Found correct physical address of Contact Centre used and no obligation to send letter to respondent managers – Found first applicant provided sufficient union members to ensure respondent’s business maintained – Found business disruptions within level envisaged by Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Found applicants did not insistent 23 members attend - No breach of good faith – Questions answered in favour of first applicant - RECOVERY OF MONIES – Second applicants sought recovery of deduction of wages for attending union meeting – Parties agreed determination in first applicant’s favour would entitle second applicants to recovery of monies –Second applicants entitled to sum owed - PENALTY – First applicants sought penalty for respondent’s breach of s26 ERA and misconceiving their rights under ERA – Authority found dispute over interpretation of union access rights not basis for imposing penalty – Found not appropriate to impose penalty for breach of s26 ERA because dispute over whether proper notice given genuine – Penalty declined – Customer Service Representatives |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of first applicant ; Application granted (Recovery of monies - Second applicants) ; Application declined (Penalty - First applicants) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s26;ERA s26(3);ERA s26(7) |
| Cases Cited | Greenlea Premier Meats Limited v NZ Meat & Related Trade Union Inc (No.2) [2006] ERNZ 549 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 60_09.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |