| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 278/10 |
| Hearing date | 26 Jan 2010 |
| Determination date | 11 June 2010 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | H White ; S Beard |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Dairy Workers Union Te Runanga Wai U Inc v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd |
| Summary | DIPSUTE – Parties disputed meaning and application of clause in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Dispute crystallised over transfer of respondent’s operations from site P to site L – Applicant claimed transfer of operations triggered clause of CEA requiring respondent to convene consultative committee and entitling affected workers to disruption allowance – Respondent argued clause not triggered because not redeployment, relocation or redundancy situation – Alternatively, if clause triggered then all obligations in play including requirement to advertise alternative jobs – Parties agreed redundancy last resort and redeployment and relocation options to be exhausted first – Authority found implicit that redundancy situation to exist before redeployment and relocation options triggered – Authority to determine whether site shift amounted to redundancy situation – Found no dispute nothing about operation altered other than location – Found no undue hardship or inconvenience caused by increase in distance between sites – Found site shift not substantial change to terms and conditions of employment – Found situation had not created kind of organisational upheaval contemplated by word “displace” in second redundancy definition – Found clause in CEA did not apply to site shift – Questions answered |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | General Distributors Ltd v National Distribution Union unreported, Travis, J, 7 Sep 2007, AC 52/07 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 278_10.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |