University Of Canterbury Collective Employment Agreement

University Of Canterbury Collective Employment Agreement

These scales apply to officers employed in the collective and individual staff agreements. 1) When you tell an EE that a term means something it doesn`t have. 2) if eE is misled as to the nature/extent of tariffs. ANZ v Svensson – Compliance with s 63A normally removes the possibility of an S 12-FTA application, as the existence of a written agreement eliminates the likelihood of misleading EE. The absence of a written agreement does not mean that the working relationship is invalid (Warwick Henderson Gallery). D) Unfair Negotiations Section 68: IEA negotiations are unfair when a party has been aware of or should have experienced circumstances that lead to a decline in performance. B, for example age, illness, mental disability, communication-related disability or emotional distress (Subs (2) (a)). Or subs (2) (b) the person who relies on the “skill care or advice” of the first part, or (2) (c) is induced by “oppressive means, inappropriate influence or coercion” or (2) (d) has not had the opportunity to obtain independent advice under s 63A EA. Oppressive means are more than an imbalance, to the point of unjustifiable, it is painful. It can be difficult, cruel or merciless (Tucker Wool Processors v Harrison). One of the repressive means is to obtain an unfair advantage through an uncertain use of power, used by a stronger relative to a weaker party, by unfair or inappropriate behaviour, by external coercion, contagion, fraud and, more generally, a personal advantage – but not always. (Contractors Bonding v Snee) Duress is the constraint of the will to recognize consent (Moyes – Groves v Radiation NZ Ltd). NZ Dairy Workers Union/NZMP Ltd – EC 68 was violated by an agreement between ER and the union to deduct a bargaining agent`s fee from the salaries of non-union members.

He said that if non-unionized EEs did not agree, they would not get a pay increase or improved conditions. This part was later cancelled, but only for lack of evidence. Mazengarb found that this is where you expect a challenge (if ever) to a 63A injury and a failure to seek independent advice. E) Legal requirements for content section 65(2) – an IEA must not contain provisions that are contrary to the law or incompatible with the ERDF. The minimum code – rights eEs to leave, minimum wage or parental leave. There is a prohibition of preference because someone is or is not a member of a union (s 9 (2)). Reasonable reasons should be given when a person wishes to avail himself of a temporary agreement (S 66). See notes on page 9 regarding the requirements for the trial period and the trial period.

Terson Industries v Lodger – a number of clauses were found to be illegal, including one that attempted to exclude an EE`s right to defend an LA injunction. Warwick Henderson Gallery v Weston – W went from part-time to full-time and wanted to be paid a commission. WHG would not pay a commission without W signing a written agreement. CA found that the fact that the IEA was not available in writing did not render it unenforceable and that W had the right to order. Therefore, the IEA (by s 63A (4)) is not invalidated in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of s 63A, since the EE-E value was developed to protect EEs. Designlink Ltd v Raymond – suggests that some oral variations to the IEA may be applicable, but here the variation concerned the identity of the ER, too fundamental to vary orally on the facts, and the written agreement was written. “The verbal formation of an employment contract” – author made the mistake of not distinguishing between verbal and oral.

Teile diesen Beitrag