| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 1/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 06 January 2010 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | P Cranney ; P Chemis, A Pazin |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Wrigley and Anor v Vice-Chancellor Massey University |
| Other Parties | Kelly |
| Summary | GOOD FAITH – Applicants claimed respondent breached s4(1A) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Applicants’ positions redundant following restructuring – Applicants unsuccessfully applied for new positions arising out of restructuring – Applicants claimed respondent breached good faith obligations by withholding information regarding selection of other candidates for continued employment – Applicants sought access to and opportunity to comment on selection panel’s views about competing candidates’ relative strengths and weaknesses, and discussions leading to consensus score for each – Applicants claimed entitled to information under s4(1A)(c) ERA – Respondent argued s4(1A)(c) ERA did not apply to all information and practical parameters must be placed on what needs to be provided - Authority found s4(1A) ERA imposed mandatory obligation to consult through provision of relevant information – Found decision to dismiss for redundancy could not occur without full disclosure, including perceptions of relative merits of employees, and underlying reasons behind perceptions – Found applicants not entitled to all information, only relevant information – Found what constituted relevant information would depend on facts of case – Found applicants entitled, in limited extent, to more information, and opportunity to comment on it, if only to ensure no issues of perverse or irrational scores or addition errors – Found comparison with other candidates was fundamental to termination of applicants’ employment and scrutiny of comparisons consistent with statutory entitlement to relevant information – Applicants to be provided with: information sheets completed by selection panel for all candidates; individual assessment sheets; panel’s candidate comparison summary of rating sheets; panel recommendations to respondent containing information about successful candidates – Authority found good faith did not require information from panel members’ minds to be provided to applicants – In absence of good reason to maintain confidentiality in context of publicly contestable process, Authority declined to address privacy and confidential information claims raised by respondent so parties could confer on practical ways of providing information in way that protected respondent’s concerns – Found breach of s4(1A)(c) ERA |
| Result | Application granted in part ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Good Faith |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(1A)(c)(i);ERA s4(1B);ERA s159 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland City Council v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc [2003] 2 ERNZ 386;Nee v TLNS Auckland Ald [2006] 1 ERNZ 95;Simpson Farms Limited v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 1_10.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |