| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 203/06 |
| Hearing date | 2 Mar 2006 - 3 Mar 2006 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 15 June 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | J Robson ; P Robertson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v Board of Trustees, Waiuku College |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Previously issued minute declined application for joinder - Respondent had sought to join Secretary of Education - Secretary considered matter did not require respondent to act in consultation with him - DISPUTE - Collective employment agreement (CEA") had graded pay scale for associate positions - Respondent classified laboratory technician as Grade B - Applicant sought declaration to regrade position as Grade C - Current laboratory technician ("JB") claimed job description did not reflect current tasks - When wording of CEA changed applicant and JB sought regrading - Respondent appointed sub-committee to evaluate JB's work against criteria for Grade C - Sub-committee compared job description with grade criteria, unaware JB disputed accuracy of job description or that JB believed she would have opportunity to talk to sub-committee - Science Department head not asked to provide information - Outcome of sub-committee deliberations was refusal to regrade position - Board did not ask itself proper question - Should have considered whether requirements of position had altered substantially from those which resulted in original grading - Trigger need not be single event or additional duty - Several factors warranted proper assessment by Board of whether position correctly graded - Respondent had not undertaken review of type described to JB by respondent's chairperson - Misleading as to extent of information gathered and considered - Breach of good faith and implied term of trust, confidence and fair dealing - However, Authority not satisfied it should make declaration sought by applicant - Evidence neither sufficiently precise nor extensive for Authority to determine whether position correctly graded - Issue of grading required proper assessment by respondent with input from JB and Science Department head - PENALTY - Respondent's submission that claim for penalty out of time rejected - Breach only revealed through evidence at investigation meeting - Penalty warranted" |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Leave reserved for either party to apply for further direction or orders ; Penalty ($1,000)(Payable to JB) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s134;ERA s136;State Sector Act 1988 s74A(b) |
| Cases Cited | Clark v Vita New Zealand Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 17 March 1997, AEC 21/97;New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v Board of Trustees - Red Beach School and Anor unreported, YS Oldfield, 7 November 2005, AA 437/05;Wisniewski v Rubicon Ltd unreported, RA Monaghan, 22 November 2002, AA 341/02 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 203_06.pdf [pdf 66 KB] |