Chief Executive, Unitec Institute of Technology v Tertiary Education Union [2011] NZCA 207 (20 May 2011)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Chief Executive, Unitec Institute of Technology v Tertiary Education Union [2011] NZCA 207 (20 May 2011)

Last Updated: 25 May 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA270/2011 [2011] NZCA 207

BETWEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY First Appellant

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHITIREIA COMMUNITY POLYTECHNIC Second Appellant

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, NORTHLAND POLYTECHNIC Third Appellant

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BAY OF PLENTY POLYTECHNIC Fourth Appellant

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WAIKATO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Fifth Appellant

AND TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION Respondent

Hearing: 17 May 2011

Court: Arnold, Stevens and Wild JJ

Counsel: S Cook and A Harlowe for Appellants P Cranney for Respondent

Judgment: 20 May 2011 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. Leave to appeal is granted under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to the following question of law:

Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 47 of the Employment Relations Act and in its application of s 47 to the agreed facts? In particular, did the Employment Court err in concluding that:

(1) The negative ballot of the respondent union’s members meant that the parties were not permitted to continue bargaining pursuant to the applicants’ initiation notice of 7 December 2010;

(2) The respondent union’s initiation of bargaining with each of the applicants individually on 9-11 February 2011 was proper?

2. Costs on the application are reserved.
   

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

[1] We grant leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 on the following question of law:

Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 47 of the Employment Relations Act and in its application of s 47 to the agreed facts? In particular, did the Employment Court err in concluding that:

(1) The negative ballot of the respondent union’s members meant that the parties were not permitted to continue bargaining pursuant to the applicants’ initiation notice of 7 December 2010;

(2) The respondent union’s initiation of bargaining with each of the applicants individually on 9-11 February 2011 was proper?

As is our usual practice, we do not give reasons.

[2] Both parties seek an urgent fixture. The Court is able to offer a half day fixture on 8 June 2010. The parties are to advise the Registry by 4pm on Monday 23 May 2010 whether that date is acceptable.
[3] The parties indicated that events since the Employment Court’s judgment have given rise to another question, which involves the interpretation of s 46 of the Employment Relations Act. That issue has not yet been put to the Employment Court for decision, however. Given the short time frame, it seems unlikely that any progress will be made in relation to that matter prior to 8 June 2010.
[4] Costs on this application are reserved.

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Appellants
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondent