| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 488/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 18 November 2010 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | J Roberts, J Clark ; K Spackman, D Traylor |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Corrections Association of New Zealand v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections |
| Summary | GOOD FAITH - COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance order to prevent implementation of new roster pattern – Respondent had proposed to move from 12 hour shifts to eight hour shifts - Applicant claimed change required consultation, which had not adequately occurred and that respondent had breached collective employment agreement (“CEA”) and good faith obligations – Respondent claimed formal, national consultation as envisaged by clause 9 of CEA not necessary before exercised contractual ability to change shift patterns, as empowered to do under clause 2.4 of CEA – Respondent claimed clause 9 restricted to situations when organisational review undertaken which would result in significant changes to organisational structure and staffing – Claimed implementation of new roster pattern not significant change - Authority found roster change significant as involved whole new working arrangement - Found respondent required to consult with applicant over new roster pattern before exercised contractual right to change shift pattern - Respondent claimed did consult with applicant – Authority found consultation by respondent inadequate – Found either no consultation at all, only commenced consultation process, or consultation inadequate as applicant not provided with all information – Found applicant should have been consulted over increased work load, change in prison operation, increased risk to safety, no induction or training, and reduction in hours resulting in reduction of remuneration - Found respondent breached consultation terms in clauses 1 and 9 of CEA – Found respondent breached good faith provisions in s4(4)(c) Employment Relations Act 2000 – However, found insufficient evidence to meet high standard required to support finding consultation deficiencies and breaches of good faith occurred because respondent intended to undermine applicant’s employment relationship with its members – Found both parties should have been more responsive and communicative - Found respondent had not breached clause 8 of CEA as respondent recognised applicant as representative of union members - Compliance ordered - Respondent to cease new roster pattern by specified date – Respondent to reinstate and continue roster existing prior to change – If respondent wanted to propose roster similar, or same as, new roster pattern respondent to properly consult with applicant in accordance with contractual, statutory, and good faith obligations – Parties to allocate priority and sufficient resources to new consultation process – Respondent entitled to set end date for consultation period provided not less than 21 days from date on which applicant received written outline of proposed changes – Corrections Officers |
| Result | Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s4;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A)(a);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(4);ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s4A;ERA s4A(b)(ii);ERA s4A(b)(iii);ERA s18(1);ERA s137(1);ERA s137(1)(a)(i);ERA s137(1)(a)(ii);ERA s137(2);ERA Part 1 |
| Cases Cited | Association of Salaried Medical Specialists v Otago DHB [2006] ERNZ 492;Auckland City Council v The New Zealand Public Service Association and Anor [2003] 2 ERNZ 386 ; [2004] 2 NZLR 10;Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1997] ERNZ 641;Communication & Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecom NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429;Corrections Association of New Zealand v Chief Executive of the Chief Executive of Corrections [2005] ERNZ 135;Corrections Association of New Zealand v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections unreported, M Urlich, 28 Jun 2010, AA 303/10;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 533;NZEPMU v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 597;NZ Seamens Union v Gearbulk Shipping (NZ) Ltd [1989] 2 NZILR 270;OCS Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2006] 1 ERNZ 762;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union Inc and Ors;United Food Workers v Talley [1992] 1 ERNZ 756;Waikato District Health Board and Ors v The New Zealand Public Service Association Inc and Ors [2008] ERNZ 80;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air New Zealand [1993] 1 NZLR 671 |
| Number of Pages | 35 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 488_10.pdf [pdf 114 KB] |