You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

Judges mull interpretation of ERA in case

NZ Newswire logoNZ Newswire 21/06/2017

The Supreme Court is concerned an overly broad interpretation of the Employment Relations Act could limit employers' negotiating powers.

This comes as Affco and the Meat Workers Union continue their dispute in the country's highest court.

The case is the first judicial test of amendments to the ERA introduced in March 2015, which allowed firms to opt out of multi-employer agreements and removed the duty under good faith bargaining for both sides to reach an agreement.

Affco was the first company to apply for an end to bargaining under the legislative changes and has mounted continuous but as-yet unsuccessful legal challenges to an Employment Court ruling in favour of the Meat Workers Union.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on one question - whether Affco had breached a section of the act defining the meaning of "lock-out" when it required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.

The Employment Court ruled that Affco unlawfully locked out meat workers when collective bargaining talks were still underway, and breached the act by not acting in good faith while negotiating a new collective agreement.

That decision was significant in finding that seasonal workers were engaged by Affco on employment agreements of indefinite duration rather than ending when the season ended.

In the second and final day of the hearing, Justice Terence Arnold repeated concerns raised on Tuesday by Affco's lawyer Pheroze Jagose about the consequences of an open-ended interpretation on the ability of an employer to negotiate with new potential employees.

"We don't want to be ending up with an interpretation the impact of which we don't fully understand," Justice Arnold said.

"One way of exploring whether the language bears particular meanings is looking at the consequences - it can't be right that if an employer says to somebody who's asking for twice the normal salary, I'm not going to employ you, and a whole lot of his friends come along with the same demands, I'm not employing any of you on that basis."

Peter Cranney, lawyer for the Meat Workers Union, said the important distinction was the workers in this case had had re-engagement rights as part of their old contracts.

image beaconimage beaconimage beacon