Source: Unitec branch of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU)
- “Indicative notice of cancellation was given to the insurers, even though the consultation had not yet started.”
- “Te Pūkenga failed to comply with its consultation obligations prior to removing the insurance benefits.”
- “Te Pūkenga entered the consultation having already determined the outcome, in breach of s 4(1A) of the Act.”
- “Te Pūkenga’s consultation material was misleading in part and accordingly in breach of good faith obligations under s4(1)(b) of the Act.”
Unitec Branch Commentary:
The Unitec TEU branch says the ruling sends a powerful message that employers cannot treat consultation as a mere box-ticking exercise. Consultation must be conducted in good faith, with a genuine openness to evidence and to changing position where justified.
The Branch acknowledges the exceptional work of the TEU lawyer Peter Cranney in achieving this result.
Sadly, some members who passed away after the insurance was revoked were no longer covered, and their next-of-kin missed out on benefits that would have been payable under the life-insurance scheme. Had a proper consultation occurred, the branch believes it could have demonstrated the scheme’s affordability — and that the insurance likely would have been retained.
It is also deeply concerning that Te Pūkenga has already spent more than $150,000 + GST in legal costs defending what the Court found to be a fundamentally flawed process.
The branch urges Te Pūkenga to draw a line under this matter, and to engage in genuine discussions with the union on appropriate remedies to rebuild trust and good faith.
