| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 145 |
| Hearing date | 15 Mar 2011 |
| Determination date | 11 April 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | K Beck ; K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pulp and Paper Industrial Council of the Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Applicant sought declarations and orders about respondent’s proposal and decision to reduce number of Machine Hall Assistants (“MHA”) from 10 to five - Authority found problem was really dispute about what certain terms of CEA meant and what respondent might or must do when wanted to reduce number of jobs in particular role - Applicant claimed respondent seeking to make changes with only consultation but changes would mean respondent could not meet requirements of other terms of CEA – Respondent claimed CEA specifically allowed for changes in number of MHA provided respondent followed requirements for consultation and voluntary redundancy and redeployment processes - Authority found terms of CEA to be interpreted objectively, not as parties might subsequently and subjectively say they intended words to be read - Found parties had expressly agreed respondent could review and change number of MHA roles - Found respondent did fetter its rights to conduct that review and propose changes – However, found was no actual or necessarily likely breach by respondent of its obligations under Schedule 5 CEA through proposal to reduce MHA jobs from ten to five as claimed by applicant - Authority found were aspects of consultation process where respondent did not meet obligations to necessary contractual and statutory standard - Found respondent provided misleading information to applicant’s members about respondent’s right to make proposed changes - Found respondent did not provide, when requested, copy of legal opinion to which respondent had referred to as justifying proposal and legitimacy of it - Found respondent did not provide discussion paper, and possibly other material, which had been considered by respondent’s managers - Found respondent had not met with applicant in mediation about whether proposal was matter for consultation only or was legitimately subject of dispute over interpretation of CEA - Authority found respondent’s proposal on MHA positions did not breach cl9 or Schedule 5 CEA – Found in reaching decision on proposal, respondent did not fully comply with its consultation obligations under cl17 CEA - Respondent ordered to recommence consultation on proposal and comply with its obligations by: providing applicant with copy of the legal opinion and discussion paper; providing applicant with any correspondence between specified parties containing relevant information on proposal; and giving applicant adequate opportunity to prepare response to content of those additional documents |
| Result | Questions answered ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s137;ERA s138;ERA s129;ERA s159;ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa and Ors v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_145.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |