Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 156/09
Hearing date 1 May 2009
Determination date 15 May 2009
Member M Urlich
Representation S Mitchell ; P Muir, K Burson
Location Auckland
Parties Maritime Union of New Zealand v C3 Ltd
Summary DISPUTE – JURISDICTION – First issue whether respondent applicant’s members' employer – Second issue whether applicant had standing to challenge collective employment agreement between Rail and Maritime Union and respondent (“RMTU CEA”) – Applicant’s members employed under Maritime Union of New Zealand CEA (“MUNZ CEA”) and TLNZ Ltd identified as employer – Respondent identified as RMTU’s employer under RMTU CEA – Respondent developed as new company brand and parent company to TLNZ Ltd– Applicant performed contract for lashing and hatch work – Contract subsequently transferred to another subsidiary company – Respondent held consultations with applicant and RMTU – RMTU CEA varied to allow contract work to come within terms of RMTU CEA – Applicant who were offered contract work joined RMTU - Applicant argued RMTU CEA undermined MUNZ CEA therefore sought to challenge RMTU CEA – Applicant claimed respondent led them to believe respondent their employer therefore respondent estopped from denying that position – Claimed variation to RMTU CEA had no legal effect and applicants entitled to represent union members in matters involving their collective interests – Respondent claimed applicant not party to RMTU CEA therefore no standing – Claimed TLNZ Ltd not agent for respondent therefore no grounds to lift corporate veil to declare TLNZ Ltd and respondent indistinguishable – Authority found respondent not applicant’s employer therefore no standing to challenge RMTU CEA – Found TLNZ Ltd applicant’s employer - Questions answered in favour of respondent
Result Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Main Category Jurisdiction
Statutes ERA s5;ERA s18
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: aa 156_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB]