| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 76/09 |
| Hearing date | 21 May 2009 |
| Determination date | 02 June 2009 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | P Cranney ; T MacKinnon |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v Secretary for Education, Ministry of Education |
| Summary | BARGAINING – Applicant claimed respondent breached representations during collective employment agreement (“CEA”) negotiations that back pay would not be paid to non-union members – Applicant represented members employed by The Correspondence School (“TCS”) – Respondent negotiates CEAs on behalf of non tertiary employers in Education Service including TCS – Section 75 State Sector Act 1988 provides conditions of employment of employees in education service not bound by CEA to be determined by employer and individual employee – Authority found one method by which conditions of employees not bound by CEA could be promulgated is for respondent to issue new model individual agreement following settlement of CEA – Applicant argued respondent’s misleading statements during bargaining led to settlement of CEA – Respondent made written offer to applicant to settle CEA – Authority found letter did not record no intention that non-members should get back pay – Applicant argued understood letter to mean any retrospective benefits would apply only to union members – Applicant argued plain and ordinary meaning of letter from respondent to applicant that no back pay would be paid to non-union members – Applicant sought determination that s4 ERA breached and ordinary tariff costs be awarded – Respondent argued information in letter concerned what could have happened if applicant accepted and members ratified offer – Respondent argued applicant put own version of offer to members which differed from respondent’s – Respondent argued not valid to refer to applicant’s construction of offer as component of respondent’s offer to settle CEA – Respondent argued no agreement reached by parties about application of ratified CEA to subsequent individual agreements – Authority found regardless of respondent’s intention, letter of formal offer did not refer to back pay to non-union members – Found applicant’s representations to members went beyond actual offer made by respondent – Authority did not accept words in letter required respondent to stop TCS from passing on back pay to its non-union member staff – Furthermore, respondent had no legal basis to enter into such contractual undertaking – Found applicant could not enforce illegal contract – Authority found applicant’s understanding of letter not part of settlement and could not be said to have mislead applicant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Bargaining |
| Statutes | State Sector Act 1988 s75;ERA s4(b)(i);ERA s7(ii);ERA s4;State Sector Act 1988 s74;State Sector Act 1988 s75(2) |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 76_09.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |