Disappointing Supreme Court decision confusing

Disappointing Supreme Court decision likely to confuse

The EPMU is disappointed with yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on employers' use of strike-breaking labour but says it is more likely to confuse than to clarify.

The case was originally heard in the Employment Court, which decided in favour of the employer, Air New Zealand subsidiary Air Nelson, and then in the Court of Appeal which decided in favour of the union.

The Supreme Court decision states at paragraph 24 "The approach adopted by the Employment Court was not in error. Nor do we think it differs in substance from the approach suggested by the Court of Appeal ..."

“So which is correct? The Employment Court or the Court of Appeal?” says Andrew Little, EPMU National Secretary.

"Judicial elites like the Supreme Court majority in this case wouldn't know the first thing about the reality of industrial disputes and this is reflected in their decision when they say employers and workers will have to act in good faith when deciding how to apply the law (paragraph 21),” he says.

“The reality is that by the time industrial action has started, good faith has long since fled the scene. The decision is impractical and is likely to be ignored at the coalface," he says.

The Air Nelson dispute the case arose out of was settled in 2007 with a 9.5% pay rise over 30 months.

ENDS

© Scoop Media