| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 381 |
| Hearing date | 31 Aug 2011 |
| Determination date | 05 September 2011 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | A-M McInally ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Tenix Alliance New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – CEA provided for Impairment Procedure (“I”) to apply if employees suspected to be unable to carry out duties safely due to medical reasons, fatigue, alcohol or drugs – Respondent also formulated and published another policy under “Fitness for Work: Drugs and Alcohol” (“F”) which respondent wanted to introduce – Whether I precluded adoption of F in absence of variation to CEA – Applicant sought declaration that F breached I – Authority found I part of CEA and binding on parties and could not be altered without mutual agreement – Found F separate to I – Respondent claimed overlap between policies and viewed policies as complementary – Respondent claimed F did not alter I in any material way – Found F stated to form part of wider policies and procedures already in place – Found wider policies and procedures that F part of included I – Found I and F addressed same matters with same focus – Found F and I not identical – Found F broader than I to extent of constituting material change – Found reasonable to assume F intended to change procedures available under I – Found respondent purported to introduce changes such as random drug testing – Found change purported to alter CEA – Found mutual consent required for change – Found subordinate policies should not displace contractual terms and conditions – Found employees bound by CEA required to comply with current provisions – Found if respondent wanted to change provisions it must do so by variation of CEA – Found F could not be imposed on employees as terms and conditions of employment without breaching requirement under CEA for any change to CEA to be made in accordance with variation provisions – Question answered in favour of applicant |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc and Ors v Air New Zealand Limited [2004] ERNZ 614 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_381.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |