Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Wellington
Reference No WA 197/10
Hearing date 25 Nov 2010
Determination date 13 December 2010
Member G J Wood
Representation S Mitchell ; G Malone
Location Napier
Parties New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Workers' Union v Affco (NZ) Ltd
Summary COMPLIANCE ORDER – Parties in dispute over terms and conditions of employment at respondent’s Wairoa plant - Applicant sought compliance with written trial arrangement (“TA”) - Respondent claimed parties agreed to new agreement not based on TA - Parties had collective employment agreement (“CEA”) specifying terms and conditions of employment common to all process workers employed at all respondent’s sites - CEA provided that Site Employment Agreement (“SA”) covering rates of pay and site specific conditions of employment be negotiated and administered at site level - SA at Wairoa not in writing - In response to respondent’s plan to reconstruct and modernise beef processing operations at Wairoa, parties entered TA – TA reached in mediation, and constituted compromise to resolve issues of remuneration and manning levels - Respondent came to believe had overpaid employees and so reduced pay rates - Applicant brought claim in Authority to require respondent to adhere to TA – Respondent counter-claimed for determination TA expired and CEA and site agreements governed relationship – Authority removed matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on issue whether TA was collective agreement and continued in force after expiry - EC held TA was collective agreement – Held on expiry terms of TA became terms of individual employment agreements of employees bound by it and remained effective and enforceable – Held terms and conditions could include concurrent terms of CEA, SA and TA – TA not inconsistent with CEA – EC noted that regardless of outcome new terms and conditions of employment would have to be negotiated between parties - Unfortunately EC did not issue judgment until over five months after hearing during which time parties entered into new CEA and entered into arrangements for reemployment of staff for new season - Parties continued to negotiate unsuccessfully for new SA - Applicant’s negotiator (“M”) and respondent’s negotiator (“C”) agreed season would begin on basis of tally of 300, payment as per respondent’s proposed site agreement and memorandum of understanding between parties with parties finalising new site agreement within four weeks – No specific agreement reached on what would happen if no site agreement reached – Parties did not agree to new site agreement within four weeks - Applicant claimed what was agreed to was trial within a trial, that is at end of four weeks parties would revert to working under previous season’s terms – Authority rejected applicant’s claims - Found M did not state that was to be case in memo – Authority accepted C’s evidence would never again agree to trial period and had informed M of this – Found parties must be assumed to have known were no agreements, other than those in CEA, that survived end of season because seasonal workers’ employment terminated and had to be rehired - Found applicant unable to provide any documentation to explain what its formal position was - Found employees informed at induction that new conditions would apply - Found was no doubt contents of agreement, even if was trial, were not inconsistent with CEA – Found terms did not have to be agreed in writing before became terms of parties’ employment agreements – Found terms outlined by respondent continued to bind parties after first four weeks’ work – Applicant’s claim dismissed
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Compliance Order
Cases Cited Canterbury Spinners Ltd v Vaughan [2002] 1 ERNZ 255 ; [2003] 1 NZLR 176 ; (2002) 6 NZELC 96,859 ; (2002) 1 NZELR 10;New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc. v AFFCO NZ Ltd [2009] ERNZ 68
Number of Pages 10
PDF File Link: wa 197_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB]