|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Eastern Bay Independent industrial Workers Union Inc v ABB
7 Mar 2008, V Campbell, AA 79/08, (8 pages)
BARGAINING - Respondent party to two separate collective employment agreements ("CEA") - First CEA with applicant and another union - Second CEA with EPMU - As CEAs due to expire, respondent invited applicant and EPMU to enter preliminary discussions to obtain views on consolidating bargaining to achieve one CEA - Request to consolidate bargaining declined by applicant and EPMU - Common ground applicant and EPMU preferred to do own negotiations - Negotiations settled with applicant before EPMU - Applicant sought order from Authority requiring respondent comply with clause of CEA - Applicant also contended respondent failed to act in good faith - Further claim that respondent passed on same terms and conditions to EPMU as those settled with applicant - Applicant claimed terms passed on with intent to and undermined CEA - Authority noted not breach of CEA to pass on benefits arrived at through collective bargaining - Clause in CEA required agreement of applicant before passing on could occur - Authority found requirement inconsistent with s59C Employment Relations Act ("ERA") to extent disregarded passing on as prima facie lawful and agreement of parties not required - Authority found individual terms of settlement agreed to by applicant and EPMU contained variations in wording but provided essentially same benefits - Applicant claimed 14 terms and conditions negotiated with respondent passed on to EPMU which were not raised by EPMU at outset of negotiations -Authority satisfied genuine reasons for identical provisions - EPMU delegate argued during negotiations with respondent proposals and counter proposals made in attempt to find common ground - Applicant also alleged terms included in EMPU CEA without negotiation were copied from applicant's CEA - Authority accepted respondent used previously prepared applicant document as template for drafting EPMU terms of settlement - Authority satisfied while outcomes of bargaining similar, CEAs result of genuine and robust bargaining process and not automatically passed on - Found evidence did not support breach of good faith - Authority found pursuant to s59C ERA not breach of good faith for employer to conclude CEA containing provision same or substantially same as term in another binding CEA - Authority noted s59C(2) ERA made breach of good faith where provisions passed on with intention to undermine and did undermine other CEA - Authority satisfied passing on of provisions from applicant CEA to EPMU CEA did not breach s59C ERA - Application dismissed
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
