| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 209 |
| Hearing date | 15 Nov 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 December 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | M Hunt ; M Kirk |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Dixon v Marlborough Kindergarten Association Inc |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application to prevent respondent proceeding with proposed restructure – Respondent board set up meetings with management team regarding overlap of roles – Respondent board proposed new position of general manager be established – Applicant sent alternative proposal on behalf of management team to respondent board – Respondent board issued document which recommended applicant’s position be disestablished and replaced with general manager – Respondent board considered applicant’s submissions but decided to implement proposal – Respondent board advised applicant that position would be redundant but could apply for general manager position – Applicant initiated proceedings before proposal implemented – Applicant claimed redundancy unjustified in procedural and substantive sense – Applicant claimed respondent did not act in good faith – Applicant claimed requirement that needed to wait for termination before resolving issues unreasonable and arbitrary – Respondent claimed injunction would have effect of permanent injustice which would impede upon right to manage especially given differences between applicant’s role and that of general manager – Authority found applicant had arguable case – Found if applicant dismissed could bring grievance which would offer adequate alternative remedy of reinstatement – Found applicant sought quia timet injunction – Found insufficient evidence to show dismissal would occur imminently – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent because if application granted respondent would be hamstrung and unable to address operational concerns for some time, if not indefinitely – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Executive Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079;Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129;Kumar v Elizabeth Memorial Home Ltd [1998] 2 ERNZ 61 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_209.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |