In a latest case earlier than the Employment Relations Authority, each the New Zealand Skilled Firefighters Union and the Public Service Affiliation argued the actions of Fireplace and Emergency New Zealand and the way it approached session with the unions a couple of change proposal had undermined bargaining.
Bargaining started in Could 2024 with NZPFU. There have been about 50 days of bargaining and 6 days of facilitation. PSA bargaining began in January 2025 and there have been 9 days.
The authority accepted there was a crossover between various the unions’ claims and the proposal for change. Nonetheless, bargaining had been ongoing with each unions.
Whereas there was a component of shock, given the crossover between the change proposal and bargaining claims, the authority additionally noticed that bargaining is a dynamic course of.
Fenz’s organisational priorities modified throughout the bargaining course of, however the truth claims had been impacted didn’t essentially imply bargaining had been undermined.
The authority discovered Fenz did not adequately seek the advice of with NZPFU and PSA over the proposed restructure and it breached its obligation of fine religion by failing to be energetic and constructive in establishing and sustaining a productive employment relationship.
The collective agreements offered that Fenz agreed to seek the advice of with the unions over any proposed modifications that may impression the phrases and circumstances of employment.
The agreements additionally detailed the duty to seek the advice of was not restricted to session concerning the penalties of a proposed change however included session about whether or not or not the proposed change ought to happen and the reasoning behind it.
Early in 2024, a choice was made to refresh Fenz’s organisational technique and in Could 2025, a refreshed technique was launched. The draft was consulted on with the unions earlier than it was put earlier than the board for approval.
In June, the Strategic Implementation Programme was launched. The Strategic Route 2025-2030 doc and the Implementation Programme signalled change at Fenz however weren’t particular about what these modifications can be. Govt management workforce members had been to design a plan for change in relation to the department they had been answerable for with the general goal of aligning Fenz with the technique.
Every plan was signed off by the chief govt and the general proposal for change was signed off by the board. The session doc was launched underneath embargo to the union, 24 hours earlier than it was disseminated organisation vast. A call was made to not seek the advice of with the union previous to consulting with the entire organisation.
NZPFU reminded Fenz that if issues affected the work of any NZPFU members then Fenz was required to seek the advice of in accordance with the session clause within the collective.
The PSA requested an extension of the session interval noting that it had not but acquired the embargoed copy, nor had there been any pre-consultation about any proposal.
Assembly invitations had been despatched to workers whose positions had been affected by the proposal. The intention was to speak with these most affected earlier than the entire organisation was conscious of what the proposal contained. Recipients of invitations had been upset and pressured. They assumed they had been shedding their jobs. Because the unions had not seen the proposal, they had been unable to offer assist or steerage to their members.
The conferences happened. Fenz couldn’t present the change proposal doc to these workers however confirmed every individual’s position had been considerably impacted.
An embargoed copy of the session doc was then emailed to the unions. The next night the session doc was launched organisation vast and the embargo on the copies offered to the union was lifted.
The PSA suggested Fenz it thought-about it was in breach of the session clause within the collective settlement and mentioned it wished to resolve that breach by having Fenz retract the change proposal and seek the advice of with the PSA. Fenz responded it was consulting and there was no obligation to seek the advice of with the PSA completely earlier than consulting with different unions and associations and immediately with workers.
The unions submitted Fenz didn’t seek the advice of early sufficient to have the ability to fulfill the session necessities within the collective settlement clauses. They additional argued there had not been a real effort by Fenz to answer the views of these being consulted.
The unions additionally claimed Fenz had did not seek the advice of in a means that demonstrated a real effort to answer the unions’ views or in a means that demonstrated Fenz was motivated to succeed in consensus concerning the factors raised by the unions.
Whereas Fenz accepted no session occurred previous to the discharge of the session doc, it mentioned this was as a result of there was no proposal that might be consulted on previous to that date.
The unions argued the proposal launched for session was nicely superior and virtually full. The proposal was labored on for about six-months and but there was no indication of the huge train that was underneath means. Fenz argued it needed to formulate a proposal with the intention to set off the session clause.
The authority discovered the proposal made it clear that change was crucial and pressing for monetary causes and that these causes had been identified when the proposal was launched. The unions argued that whereas they knew that extra change and restructure was coming, they didn’t have any details about what that may appear to be or the magnitude of it.
After reviewing all the fabric, the authority concluded what was introduced as a proposal for change had gone previous the purpose the place the session doc might be mentioned to be significant. The clauses within the collective required session with the unions about whether or not change ought to happen and the explanations for change.
The redesign of the organisation concerned modifications to about 700 roles and greater than 150 redundancies. The session doc illustrated how superior the pondering was. As such it undermined the prospect of significant session.
The session doc did not reference session with the unions. There was additionally a failure to recognise that extra time was required to grasp the change proposal of such a scale earlier than launch to union members.
The authority additionally discovered that after session commenced, Fenz’s responses to communications from the unions didn’t exhibit a motivation to succeed in consensus.
The authority concluded Fenz had breached the session clauses within the collective agreements by not consulting on the proposal early sufficient to permit for session on whether or not change ought to happen and the explanations for change.
As a part of the discovering that Fenz additionally breached its good religion obligations, the authority famous that the proposal was launched on a date that coincided with the NZPFU annual convention and bargaining between PSA and Fenz. The timing was not conduct aimed toward sustaining a productive employment relationship.
Partly, the authority’s determination rests on the actual wording of the session clauses inside the collectives. Nonetheless, additionally it is clear that the authority seen various Fenz’s actions as missing in good religion, if not intentionally obstructive.
One of many classes that comes from this determination, is that irrespective of how irritating the bargaining course of could also be, each the employer and the union have obligations to be energetic and constructive in establishing and sustaining a productive employment relationship.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this article are these of the author and don’t purport to be particular authorized or skilled recommendation. John Farrow is a Companion with Anderson Lloyd, specialising in employment legislation.
Â
