| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 73 |
| Hearing date | 14 Apr 2011 - 15 Apr 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 05 May 2011 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | D Martin ; T McKinnon |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | New Zealand Education Institute Inc v Board of Trustees of Te Mata School and Ors |
| Other Parties | Board of Trustees of Parkvale School, Board of Trustees of Frimley School, Secretary for Education of the Ministry of Education |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Interpretation of collective agreement (“CA”) - Appendix of CA provided for professional development opportunities for employees – Implementing programme nationally subject to whether pilot programme successful – Applicant claimed pilot successful and programme should be implemented nationwide – Second respondent (“M”) claimed pilot unsuccessful and even if successful M’s approval still required before programme implemented nationwide – Pilot programme implemented in some schools – Applicant claimed pilot successful largely based on evaluation report submitted to M and meeting minutes of group setup to oversee pilot – M relied on same report and meeting minutes to claim pilot unsuccessful – M declined applicant’s proposal to implement programme nationally or to vary collective agreement – M claimed no agreement that, if pilot successful, programme would be implemented nationally rather always condition M’s approval needed first – M claimed matter would have significant fiscal implications – Applicant sought declaration CA provided, in event of successful pilot, M would negotiate suitable variation to CA accordingly – M claimed did not breach any CA obligations relating to pilot – Applicant claimed matters should not be removed to EC – Applicant claimed s178 Employment Relations Act (“ERA”) allowed for removal before investigation commenced but not during investigation – Authority noted almost inevitable finding against M would be challenged in EC – M neither opposed or supported removal of matter to EC but claimed would accept determination – Authority found not too late to remove to EC as final submissions not received and no determination issued – Found no important question of law – Found matter not so urgent should be removed immediately – Found strong likelihood of challenge to determination, decision affected large number of people, issues extended to potentially all New Zealand’s teaching establishments, cost of programme likely to be millions and matter of public interest – Matter removed to EC under s178(1) and s178(2)(d) ERA |
| Abstract | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(1);ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d);ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);State Sector Act 1988 s23;State Sector Act 1988 s69(b) |
| Cases Cited | Vice Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart [2008] ERNZ 249 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_73.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |