| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 114 |
| Determination date | 11 June 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Cranney ; H Gilbert |
| Parties | Tertiary Education Union (TEU) v Vice Chancellor, University of Canterbury |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Authority found matter of such nature and urgency that removal in public interest – Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Respondent sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds that important question of law likely to arise and matter of such nature and urgency that removal in public interest. Matter concerned whether respondent’s regulations enforceable as terms and conditions of employment affecting respondent’s ability to restructure. Respondent claimed need to finalise University calendar urgent and challenge inevitable if Authority determination favourable to applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No important question of law likely to arise. Matter sufficiently urgent and of public importance. Fact that dispute had significant financial implications meant challenge inevitable if Authority determination favourable to applicant. Appropriate that matter be removed on ground that matter of such nature and urgency that removal in public interest. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 551;Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart (No 2) [2008] ERNZ 249 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_114.pdf [pdf 90 KB] |