RESEARCH REPORT: DETERMINATIONS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
| Volume 27 Number 3 | October 2002 |
|
RESEARCH REPORT: DETERMINATIONS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
|
|
While there have been some changes around the edges, the essential shape of the institutions' caseload, in terms of the types of cases being heard and decided, remains largely the same, as illustrated in Table One. A number of speculations could be made about different aspects of the table. One suspects, for example, that with expanded resources the Mediation Service is doing a more effective job in tidying up wage arrears, and even fewer of those are going to formal determination now than was so during the Tribunal era. The reduction in cost decisions presumably reflects a different approach to dealing with costs in the Authority.
The interim injunction numbers obviously reflect a new jurisdiction, but in other respects - bargaining cases or union access, for example - the expanded jurisdiction of the Authority over the Tribunal hardly registers on the radar screen.
|
Table One: Proportion (%) of cases by primary issue
|
||
|
Tribunal
|
Authority
|
|
| Arrears of wages & holiday pay |
11%
|
7%
|
| Compliance orders |
2 %
|
4%
|
| Costs |
23%
|
15%
|
| Disputes |
2%
|
6%
|
| Personal grievances - dismissal |
42%
|
42%
|
| Personal grievances - disadvantage |
3%
|
2%
|
| Interim injunctions |
0%
|
4%
|
| Preliminary issues, practice, procedure |
15%
|
18%
|
| Other matters |
1%
|
2%
|
Stripped of preliminary and procedural issues, and of followup costs decisions, the substantive work of the Authority remains largely focused on unjustifiable dismissal personal grievances, as was the case for the Tribunal, both during our sample period and indeed throughout its existence.
Given the continuing preponderance of personal grievance cases, for the balance of this research note the focus will largely be on personal grievances. Before moving to that focus, however, it is worth recording the outcomes for the Authority's broader caseload. As is evident in Table Two, the outcome pattern has changed in only small ways in the new institution, and not in any statistically significant way.
|
Table Two: Employee success rates (%) by primary
issue
(major case categories only) |
|||
| Won | Lost | No Advantage | |
| Arrears of wages, holiday pay | |||
| Tribunal |
88%
|
11%
|
1%
|
| Authority |
79%
|
17%
|
5%
|
| Compliance orders | |||
| Tribunal |
82%
|
13%
|
5%
|
| Authority |
80%
|
20%
|
0%
|
| Disputes | |||
| Tribunal |
34%
|
59%
|
6%
|
| Authority |
49%
|
51%
|
0%
|
| Personal grievances | |||
| Tribunal |
58%
|
42%
|
0%
|
| Authority |
58%
|
42%
|
0%
|
| Preliminary issues, and practice and procedure | |||
| Tribunal |
38%
|
37%
|
25%
|
| Authority |
32%
|
36%
|
32%
|
*The gender makeup of the Authority has altered somewhat over the last 18
months. It commenced operation with 13 Members, five of whom were women with
one of them on parental leave. Over time, two of the women (including the one
on parental leave) resigned, two additional appointments were made (both male),
and just recently three further appointments have been made, including two women.
Accordingly, there are now 14 Members, five of whom are women.
|