| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 174/10 |
| Hearing date | 4 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 October 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Crannye ; S Hornsby-Geluk |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Housing New Zealand Corporation v Public Service Association Inc |
| Summary | BARGAINING – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith with email sent to members – Applicant claimed respondent breached Employment Relations Act 2000 with conduct in regard to communication – Applicant claimed had no opportunity to comment on draft of communication and concerns misleading and inaccurate – Respondent argued alleged breaches occurred after applicant announced bargaining ended – Applicant denied communicated bargaining ended – Respondent claimed communication sent in response to two communications issued by applicant – Applicant criticised respondent’s newsletter – Respondent stood by statements and opinions expressed in newsletter – Applicant claimed respondent issued press release that was misleading and inaccurate as to content and information – Applicant claimed respondent undermined bargaining by issuing misleading and deceptive communications – Authority found applicant indicated bargaining at end but qualified on basis impasse reached – Found bargaining not at end – Found decision to send out newsletter unreasonable – Found no reason to send out newsletter before receiving feedback – Found lack of explanation included misunderstanding about bargaining being at end – Found respondent breached requirement to act in good faith – Found evidence did not extend to establish respondent intended to undermine bargaining – Found failure of respondent to respond and releasing media release was deliberate action – Found respondent breached good faith obligation – Found parties held different view of content of evidence – Found communications not used to undermine bargaining – Found breaches fundamental – PENALTY – Found insufficient evidence to establish breaches intended to undermine bargaining and employment relationship – Found penalty not appropriate – Found litigation to help parties in communication – Found continuing effort to bargain needed to be encouraged – Found compliance order also not appropriate |
| Result | Application granted (good faith) ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Bargaining |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1)(a);ERA s4(1)(b);ERA s5;ERA s32;ERA s32(1)(d)(iii);ERA s157(2)(b);ERA s157(2)(c) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 174_10.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |