| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 130 |
| Hearing date | 19 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2012 |
| Member | M Ryan |
| Representation | T Kennedy ; A Russell |
| Parties | New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association and Anor v Secretary for Education and Anor |
| Other Parties | R Gray ; Cambridge High School |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion – Authority found public interest in determination as significant number of individuals affected if resolution of matter delayed – Found highly probable Authority determination would be challenged by unsuccessful party – Found matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed and in all circumstances EC should determine matter - Matter removed to EC – Education and Training Sector |
| Abstract | Authority considered removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion. Parties disputed interpretation and application of terms of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”). Second applicant (Mr Gray) employed by second respondent (Cambridge High School) and claimed entitled to be placed on higher pay scale in accordance with CEA. Second applicant claimed underpaid as consequence of first respondent’s failure to comply with CEA. First applicant (New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association) claimed some members including second applicant should have been placed on increased pay scale however first respondent (Secretary for Education) continued to apply pay scales in existence before agreed variation to CEA. First respondent claimed almost 2,000 secondary school teachers could potentially be directly affected by determination of matter.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Authority noted determination of dispute urgent and CEA covered work of more than 20,000 employees. In circumstances, where dispute over terms might impede or obstruct conclusion of bargaining, matter should be dealt with urgently. Public interest in determination as significant number of individuals affected if resolution of matter delayed. Highly probable Authority determination would be challenged by unsuccessful party, although likelihood of challenge should be treated with caution as reason to remove matter to EC. Matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed and in all circumstances EC should determine matter. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178(1);ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Vice Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart [2008] ERNZ 249 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_130.pdf [pdf 101 KB] |