| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 66 |
| Hearing date | 13 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 16 April 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | L Ryder ; R Thompson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Taggart v CDF National Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant told respondent considering establishing competing business – Respondent claimed applicant attempted to solicit respondent’s staff (“S” and “T”) – Applicant denied attempted to solicit staff – Applicant claimed respondent said applicant not guaranteed more work – Respondent denied gave applicant notice – Investigation commended – Respondent told applicant believed applicant had attempted to solicit respondent’s employees – Respondent claimed applicant told respondent applied for or registered to undertake work with Earthquake Commission (“EQC”) allowing competition with respondent – Respondent claimed applicant relied on confidential information to offer respondent’s employees more pay – Respondent told applicant considering dismissing applicant but invited to make written submissions – Applicant claimed conversation with respondent’s employees only ‘pub talk’ – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed would suffer financial hardship if had to wait for substantive determination – Authority found applicant should have been provided with statements by S and T about conversations before disciplinary meeting and applicant should have had chance to question S and T – Found applicant given notice at early meeting and arguable case of predetermination – Found respondent failed to check if applicant and applicant’s brother registered with EQC – Found if employer reasonably concluded applicant attempted to solicit S and T, fair and reasonable employer could have dismissed applicant – Found arguable case applicant unjustifiably dismissed – Found financial hardship as result of dismissal not reason by itself to order reinstatement – Found plenty of jobs for skilled tradesmen – Found credible argument applicant attempted to solicit S and T and reasonable for respondent to lose trust and confidence in applicant – Found doubtful applicant able to meet undertaking for damages – Found balance against reinstatement – Found monetary compensation adequate remedy if applicant successful at substantive hearing – Found respondent not in position to easily prevent risk applicant would attempt to solicit staff – Found overall justice of case against reinstatement – Interim reinstatement declined – Painter and foreman |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s125;ERA s127(2);ERA s127(4) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015;Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 1;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with Exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855; [1991] 1 NZLR 392;Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees (2010) 7 NZELR 539;New Zealand Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate School [1992] 3 ERNZ 243;New Zealand Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate School [1994] 2 ERNZ 414;X v Y Ltd and NZ Stock Exchange [1992] 1 ERNZ 863 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_66.pdf [pdf 72 KB] |