Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2011] NZERA Christchurch 207
Determination date 20 December 2011
Member P Cheyne
Representation A Sharma ; K Dunn
Location Christchurch
Parties Gazeley v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Applicant claimed would suffer continued irreparable damage to reputation, employment prospects and lost earnings if matter not removed to EC on grounds of urgency – Respondent claimed matter not of such urgency that in public interest to remove it to EC – Respondent claimed challenge to Authority determination filed in EC not within words of s178(2)(c) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Respondent claimed matter not complex and respondent should not be put to extra expense of defending matter in EC instead of Authority – Authority found no public interest arose from applicant’s desire to progress substantive claim – Found overall case not of such urgency that in public interest to remove it to EC – Found “already” in s178(2)(c) ERA meant at time Authority determined application for removal rather than at time of application for removal – Found could not be said issues before EC unrelated to issues remaining for Authority – Found applicant’s removal application just came within s178(2)(c) ERA – However, found best way of giving effect to objects of ERA was to decline removal – Application for removal declined – Facility Manager
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s125;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d)
Cases Cited Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 401;Angus and Anor v Ports of Auckland Ltd NZEmpC 160;McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 422;NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2002] ERNZ 74
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_207.pdf [pdf 37 KB]