21 Dec 2004
APN NEW ZEALAND LTD V NZ AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION INC CA CA62/04
- Citation
- openlaw-27d89ff8_2ce6_4db6_a7f9_b4e9129538e0.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Clause 4.3 was inconsistent with the Employment Relations Act 2000 because a coverage clause must be directed to specifying the work covered and the legislature did not contemplate a personal opt‑out by union members; therefore employees covered by the CEA could not withdraw from its coverage during its term by clause 4.3 or by entering into individual employment agreements, and the Employment Court's answers to the referred questions (2: yes; 3: no; 4: no) were correct.