| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 208/10 |
| Hearing date | 4 May 2010 - 5 May 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 16 November 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; B Smith, S Meikle |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Andrews v The University of Canterbury & Anor |
| Other Parties | The Association of University Staff of New Zealand (Inc) |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – GOOD FAITH – First respondent (“University”) undertook review of structure of College of Arts – Opportunity outside redundancy selection process to negotiate voluntary redundancy or other alternatives – Applicant commenced discussions about alternatives – Applicant claimed as result of conversations with Head of School of Culture, Literature and Society and National President of Union (“M”) told no position that applicant wanted in new structure – Applicant claimed in reliance on conversation with M negotiated for voluntary redundancy – Applicant entered full and final settlement with University – No redundancies in final implementation plan – Applicant attempted to reopen settlement agreement and asked University to enter further negotiations – University claimed M not representative or agent and settlement agreement precluded applicant from bringing any claims – Second respondent (“Union”) claimed M not representative when had discussions with applicant and did not mislead or deceive applicant – M claimed genuine belief no positions available for applicant – Applicant claimed conversations categorical that no positions available – Authority preferred M’s evidence – Found M confidently advised applicant of M’s understanding would not be position for applicant – Found likely M advised applicant to check with Union or human resources – Found M did not have authority to represent University – Found University did not hold M out as having actual authority in restructuring or decision making – Found M had actual authority to make representations on behalf of Union – Found M acted with apparent authority of Union – Found applicant barred from pursuing claim by virtue of settlement agreement – Found University had no knowledge at time of entering settlement agreement of conversation between applicant and M – Found M held reasonable belief no position for applicant – Found no misleading or deceptive conduct on part of M – Found no breach of good faith by Union – No breach of Fair Trading Act 1986 – Order prohibiting publication of names contained in handwritten notes and terms of settlement agreement – Senior Lecturer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Good Faith |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s149;Australian Trade Practices Act 1974;Fair Trading Act 1986 s9;Fair Trading Act 1986 s43;Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 |
| Cases Cited | AMP Finance NZ Ltd v Heaven [1997] 8 TCLR;Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA v Ali [2002] 1 AC 251;Clark v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [2002] 2 ERNZ 483;NZ Building Trades Union v Elbert Bros Construction Ltd [1981] 3 ERNZ 1004;Manchester Property Care Ltd v O'Connor (No 2) [1998] 2 ERNZ 305;Marlow v Yorkshire NZ Ltd [2000] ERNZ 206;Rickards v Ruapehu District Council [2003] ERNZ 400;Red Eagle v Ellis [2010] NZSC 20;Stevens v Premium Real Estate Ltd (2006) 8 NZCPR 38 |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 208_10.pdf [pdf 69 KB] |