Air Niugini's subsidiary - LINK PNG

[olderairhead]

I have just received a copy of the transcript and the following is an extract of the decision and directions:

CONTRACT LAW – Employment contract - Essential elements of a contract – Employer requiring employees to sign individual contracts to replace industry based agreements – Employer not meaningful involving the employees’ unions – No meaningful negotiation leading to clear offers and acceptances - No real and meaningful opportunity given to employees to seek legal advice before signing contracts - Effect of – Void and unenforceable contract.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Employment under industry based agreement – Terms of – Agreement to continue to govern relationships between the parties until parties negotiate and mutually arrive at new agreement – Parties failing to do so – Employer producing individual employment contracts on terms less better than existing agreements – No input and free acceptance of the terms of the new contract by employees or their respective unions – Employees given no real and meaningful opportunity to seek legal advice and consider terms of contract before signing – Some employees refusing to sign new contracts while others signed under protest and pressure to avoid financial and other hardships – Effect of - New contract not legally binding and unenforceable – Existing contract continuing to run until all the parties enter into meaningful negotiations and mutually arrive at a new agreement.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – History and importance of trade union movements – An employee’s right to be a member of a union – Purpose of – Collective bargaining and collective agreement – Employers precluded from approaching employees who a members of a union individually and separately except only through their union - Correct way to legally depart from or terminate an industry based collective agreement – According to the terms of the existing agreements or by mutual agreement of the parties – Sections 47 and 48 (2) of the Constitution - Sections 63 of Industrial Organisations Act (Chp. 173) and Industrial Relations Act (Chp.174)

Orders
61. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
1. The parties are required to consider the foregoing decisions and the reasons for those decisions and resolve the issue of what should be an appropriate remedy or remedies for the Plaintiffs.
2. The parties shall also resolve the question of who should pay the costs and at what rate.
3. The matter is fixed to return to the Court on 3rd May 2017 at 9:30 for the Court to endorse any agreement of the parties on the matters specified in terms 1 and 2 of these orders or failing any such agreement, make the appropriate decision and issue the appropriate orders finalizing these proceedings.
4. The time for an entry of the orders is abridged to take place forthwith upon the Court signing these orders.


The hearing on the 3rd did not eventuate due to the appointment of new lawyers for PX and the transcript not being available. Hearing rescheduled to the 10th.

At that hearing the Judge received the documents from both lawyers and adjourned until the 12th so as to be able to become familiar with the position of all parties.

Not surprisingly PX did not agree with the pilot submitted position.

The Judge has now deferred the hearing until the 15th.

Stay tuned.