| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 48 |
| Hearing date | 14 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 07 February 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | D Martin ; G Stone |
| Location | Kerikeri |
| Parties | Gethen and Ors v The Board of Trustees of Kerikeri High School |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) - Whether applicants’ employment on fixed term basis lawful - Applicants sought order that respondent could not rely on fixed term to end employment - Respondent claimed applicant employed on fixed term basis and employment ended upon expiry of fixed term – Applicants had been employed by respondent on more than one fixed term EA and two applicants had been employed on more than five successive fixed term EAs – Respondent claimed EAs lawful as funding for applicants’ positions uncertain – Respondent claimed each EA stated would end at either end of school term or school year - Authority found parties’ EAs met basic requirements of s66(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 - Found applicants had accepted employment on fixed term basis in principle – Respondent claimed fixed term necessary as funding dependent on number of students requiring teacher aide at respondent and funding “followed” student if changed schools - Respondent claimed could not predict number of students requiring teacher aide from year to year – Found respondent’s approach to employment of teacher aides commonplace – Respondent claimed funding also uncertain due to fluctuating funding allocation in respondent’s region from year to year – Found respondent had genuine reasons for employing applicants on fixed term basis – Respondent claimed unable to made redundancy payments to teacher aides – Found funding respondent used to pay for teacher aides not part of respondent’s ordinary revenue – Found respondent had reasonable grounds for employing applicants on fixed term basis – Found respondent did not have stable roll of students requiring teacher aide support – Applicants denied respondent gave proper advice about when employment would end and reasons for termination – Authority not persuaded applicants did not understand respondent’s term system – Authority not satisfied respondent needed to include actual term or school year dates for EAs to be valid – Applicants claimed did not understand respondent’s funding system – Found respondent gave proper and sufficient explanation for fixed term and likely applicants had clear understanding of respondent’s funding system – Questions answered in favour of respondents - Teacher Aides |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(1);ERA s66(2)(a);ERA s66(2)(b);ERA s66(3);ERA s66(4);ERA s66(5);ERA s66(6);ERA s66(6)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Canterbury Westland Free Kindergarten Association (t/a Kidsfirst Kindergartens) v New Zealand Educational Institute [2004] 1 ERNZ 547;New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v Board of Trustees - Red Beach School unreported, Y Oldfield, 7 November 2005, AA 437/05;Norske Skog Tasman Ltd v Clarke [2004] 1 ERNZ 127 ; [2004] 3 NZLR 323 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_48.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |