| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 447/10 |
| Determination date | 18 October 2010 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | M Talbot (in person) ; R McCabe |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Talbot v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant sought determination respondent breached rule 13(6) and (7) of Rules of the New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers (“Rules”) - Applicant claimed respondent breached Rules by referring complaint back to investigative subcommittee to consider legal opinion submitted by complainant after subcommittee had reported back to Board of Management (“BoM”) that complaint had not established prima facie case to answer - Respondent claimed rule 13(6) and (7) did not prevent BoM from referring complaint back to subcommittee, and that was proper to do so because complainant produced new information, which BoM resolved should be considered by subcommittee before finally disposing of matter - Authority found Rules to be interpreted in same way as any other contractual instrument - Authority recognised rule 26 placed respondent under control of BoM, which held wide powers in relation to management of respondent’s affairs - Found rule 13(6) and (7) did not expressly address BoM’s ability to refer complaint back to investigatory subcommittee after had received report on whether was prima facie case to answer - Found omission meant BoM not on face of it limited or precluded by rule 13 from referring matter back to investigatory subcommittee - Found no rule in Rules which expressly prevented BoM receiving additional information about complaint, or once that occurred, from determining how best to address it - Found was open to respondent to limit BoM’s powers that way, so considered it significant had not done so - Found BoM’s actions in dealing with new information not contrary to stated objects of respondent as set out in rule 3 - Found BoM had power to resolve to refer complaint back to subcommittee because Rules expressly permitted it to make a binding resolution, and nature of resolutions not restricted - Authority did not consider it appropriate to imply into Rules, restrictions on respondent’s ability to run own affairs and conduct own business, particularly in light of wide and general powers conferred in rules 3 and 26 - Applicant claimed subcommittee’s report to BoM meant matter functus officio, so could not be revisited – Found subcommittee not functus officio, because was no resolution by BoM to end subcommittee’s function in relation to complaint - Found respondent did not breach Rules |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s161(1)(k) |
| Cases Cited | Hopper v North Shore Aero Club Inc unreported, High Court, Auckland, Williams J, 6 Dec 2005, CIV-2005-404-2817;NZ Air Line Pilots Assn v Registrar of Unions [1989] 1 NZILR 544;Walker v Mount Victoria Residents Association Inc [1991] 2 NZLR 520 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 447_10.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |