Ruling over contract dispute

Herald publisher APN has been found in breach of good faith by requiring a journalist to quit a union-negotiated employment agreement before allowing him a pay rise three years ago.

But the company says it has been largely exonerated by an Employment Relations Authority ruling that there was no continuing breach of good faith calculated to woo Herald journalists from the collective agreement, since renegotiated.

The authority found the company breached a duty of good faith to reporter Tony Wall, who now works elsewhere, by "unfairly and unreasonably" requiring him to withdraw from collective coverage.

He asked for more money to match a rival job offer, and signed an individual agreement despite wanting to stay in the collective. He remained a union member.

Authority member Yvonne Oldfield found the publisher also breached good faith towards the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and its members, by adopting what she ruled was a blanket policy of refusing to allow more salaries into the collective.

But Ms Oldfield, noting that the company stepped back from the policy after the union began legal action, accepted there was "no ongoing breach of good faith" calculated to undermine collective coverage.

She also found insufficient evidence to support a union claim that the publisher behaved in a misleading and deceptive manner in 2001 in negotiating the collective agreement from which it required Mr Wall to withdraw the following year.

That document, which she said followed an acrimonious dispute over how many journalists it was to cover, included a clause allowing staff to move to individual agreements without leaving the union.

The Employment Court, in a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal after Ms Oldfield sought a ruling on the legality of the clause, said it was inconsistent with the law and employees could not be made to withdraw from collective coverage.

The Herald agreement also contained a provision for journalists, with the employer's consent, to move from wages to salaries without leaving the collective.

But Ms Oldfield ruled that an email to Mr Wall from Herald manager Wayne Harman in July 2002 disclosed "an unequivocal, blanket policy" not to allow him or anyone else to do so.

She called this a breach of good faith towards the union and its members, as it could undermine collective coverage by "whittling away" senior journalists. Although applied to Mr Wall, she found little evidence it was actively pursued later.

The company, which denied having a blanket policy, told the authority it could not afford for Mr Wall to "double dip" by receiving benefits of the collective document on top of a substantial salary margin.

Ms Oldfield said this was not explained to Mr Wall, and the company conceded that pay rises to staff covered by the collective were usually passed to those on individual deals.

APN New Zealand National Publishing chief executive Ken Steinke said the company was pleased to have been "largely exonerated" by the authority.

Union general counsel Tony Wilton said the authority had vindicated the union "on our main points of claim", which under a recent amendment to the law, could have cost the company a $10,000 penalty.

Mr Wall said he was pleased with the decision but resented the company's suggestion he may have intended to "double-dip" into its payroll.

* The union is challenging what it says are plans by APN to make nine Herald staff redundant, noting the company announced in February a 26 per cent annual profit rise. APN is not commenting before meeting union representatives today.