| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 330/06 |
| Hearing date | 26 Sep 2006 |
| Determination date | 30 October 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | M Dawson ; E Butcher |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education: Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa v Webster (Chief Executive of Unitec Institute of Technology) |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with consultation provisions in collective employment agreement (CEA") - Alleged decision to withdraw diploma course outside terms of staffing review and respondent failed to honour CEA - Applicant also claimed should have been consulted on decision to relocate computer classes - Respondent claimed staffing review conducted in accordance with CEA and relocation not a review of type contemplated by CEA, but applicant had input anyway - Whether review "may" result in "significant" changes and invoke operation of CEA to be assessed objectively by effect on staff - Effect need only be possibility, not as high as likelihood - Respondent did not meet requirements of statutory duty of good faith, CEA or its own policies when decided to withdraw course - Position on Diploma's future beyond scope of terms of reference - Only few days allowed for submissions before proposal adopted on misleading basis adequate consultation had occurred - Diploma proposal a significant change and within circumstances contemplated by CEA - Respondent also failed to comply with CEA before decided to relocate classes - Proposal of type that triggered CEA consultation requirements - Consultation requirements not met simply because staff told of proposal were union members - Respondent also failed to appreciate distinction between employee's who were union members giving feedback as managers, and union feedback - CEA required respondent to do more than rely on employees to notify important issues to applicant's national office - Applicant's evidence on practices of other parties to same CEA not relevant - Respondent ordered to comply with CEA - GOOD FAITH - Counterclaim - Authority made no findings on respondent's complaint applicant did not act in good faith during staffing review - However, commented that delaying responses or seeking ever more detailed information may be inconsistent with good faith" |
| Result | Application granted ; Compliance ordered ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(4)(b);ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s4(4)(d);ERA s137(3);ERA s138(3) |
| Cases Cited | Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1996] 1 ERNZ 404;Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart (2006) 7 NZELC 98, 450 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 330_06.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |