| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 23 |
| Hearing date | 22 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 19 January 2011 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; G Gorgner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v Pacific Flight Catering Ltd |
| Summary | GOOD FAITH – BARGAINING – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith obligations during bargaining for collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant notified respondent of intention to strike on three occasions – Respondent claimed exercise of right to strike in circumstances inappropriate or ill-advised – Respondent claimed strikes to occur during phase when respondent tendering for work from major airline customers – Respondent claimed potential customers reluctant to deal with supplier facing industrial action – Applicant alleged unlawful conduct in relation to questioning union members individually as to reasons for union membership, offering incentives to members to leave union or not participate in strikes, delayed payment of wages due to striking employees, and intimidation of striking employees – Applicant claimed respondent required striking employees to return uniforms and security cards during strike period – Applicant claimed publication of written statement about bargaining breached good faith obligations – Authority found statement was direct communication to members and non members – Applicant claimed statement likely to undermine bargaining by criticising way bargaining conducted – Found removal of uniforms and security cards and delayed payment of wages intended to irritate employees rather than induce employees to leave union – Respondent claimed questioned union members about membership because concerned for welfare – Found explanation insincere – Found no basis for respondent to believe applicant misled or deceived members in reaching decision to strike – Found respondent not justified in communicating directly with members – Found respondent breached good faith obligations – Found respondent’s actions likely to undermine bargaining – Found questioning of members intended to undermine bargaining – Found statement intended to undermine bargaining – Authority gave declaration respondent breached obligations of good faith – Order prohibiting publication of certain evidence – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for breach of good faith obligations – Found actions of respondent deliberate – $6,000 penalty appropriate – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with good faith obligations – Found no reason to reject respondent’s undertaking to comply with good faith requirements – Found undertaking remained live until bargaining concluded – Authority declined to order compliance |
| Result | Application granted (penalty) ; Penalty ($6,000)($3,000 payable to applicant)($3,000 payable to Crown) ; Application dismissed (compliance order) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Good Faith |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4A;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(3);ERA s32;ERA s32(1)(d)(i);ERA s32(1)(d)(iii);ERA s32(3);ERA s32(4);ERA s83;ERA s136 |
| Cases Cited | Christchurch City Council v Southern Local Government Officers’ Union Inc [2007] ERNZ 37 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_23.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |