| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 256 |
| Hearing date | 6 Jun 2013 |
| Determination date | 18 June 2013 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; P Muir |
| Parties | Tertiary Education Union v Vice-Chancellor University of Auckland |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed when respondent required under Collective Agreement (“CA”) to inform applicant of intention to review policy – Respondent sought to review Academic Grades, Standards and Criteria policy – Policy discussed during collective bargaining – Definition of review unclear – Whether respondent required to consult prior to CA coming into force |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Obligation on respondent to inform applicant of intention to review policy prior to commencing review. Extended process of comment and refinement part of review. Preparing draft policy ‘informal’ review. No distinction in CA between formal and informal reviews. Respondent obliged to consult on clause 2.8 policies once reviewed and redrafted. Respondent obliged to consult on clause 2.6 policies when intention to review formed. CA only binding once in force. Questions answered. |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Amcor Packaging (New Zealand) Limited [2011] ERNZ 409;NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Incorporated v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [2009] ERNZ 149;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005;Pyne Gould Guiness Ltd v Montgomery Watson (NZ) Ltd [2001] NZAR 789 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_256.pdf [pdf 229 KB] |