| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 476/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 10 November 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | G Bingham ; B Manning |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Bay of Plenty District Health Board v Association of Professionals and Executive Employees Inc |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicant asked Authority to provide interpretation of clause of Multi Employer Collective Agreement (“MECA”) – Applicant argued pursuant to clause of CEA entitled to make proposed roster changes – Respondent argued applicant did not have entitlement claimed and conditions of employment could only be changed with consent of affected individuals and provision of appropriate consideration – Applicant prepared business case requesting additional full time equivalent employee be added to radiology team – Subsequently working party formed to work through issues – Parties unable to reach agreement on introduction of new roster – Applicant’s position that hours of work prescribed in clause not being “varied”, rather, how and/or when hours should be worked according to proposed new roster was issue – Respondent argued if new roster to be implemented would breach clause of CEA – Applicant acknowledged financial savings from new roster but argued employees would benefit from more flexibility in regard to not being on-call – Respondent argued current terms and conditions of employees could not be changed without agreement and provision of appropriate consideration to address potential monetary loss – Authority found terms and conditions of employment applying to current rosters part of status quo regarding employment contracts currently in existence between applicant and employees – Found applicant entitled to make reasonable changes to roster but could not be altered without agreement of employees directly concerned – Found in accordance with Niao change to current roster must be agreed and supported by fresh consideration – Respondent argued applicant failed to comply with recognised principles applying to process of consultation – Argued applicant did not consult in meaningful manner in that consultation perfunctory as outcome already determined – Authority found evidence showed that applicant viewed clause of CEA permitted new roster regardless of respondent’s views – Found applicant failed to address employee’s real concerns and failed to enter meaningful consultation process – Found applicant not entitled to unilaterally introduce new roster without consent of affected individuals and provision of appropriate consideration – Authority recommended parties enter good faith negotiations consistent with clause 4 of Schedule B Employment Relations Act 2000 – Orders accordingly |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s61(1);ERA Schedule 1B cl4 |
| Cases Cited | Grant v Superstrike Bowling Centres Ltd [1992] 1 ERNZ 727;Niao v Tasman Pulp & Paper Co Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 805;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR 671 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 476_10.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |