| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 130 |
| Hearing date | 26 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 29 June 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | A Sharma ; P McBride |
| Parties | Dr X v A District Health Board |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - Applicant sought interim injunction that respondent lift suspension so applicant could practise until substantive hearing and respondent remove constraint preventing applicant from taking leave – Authority found applicant’s continued suspension action of fair and reasonable employer – Found monetary compensation unlikely to be adequate alternative remedy – Found balance of convenience favoured continued suspension until disciplinary process finalised – Found overall justice of case did not require applicant return to work – Found no evidence respondent unlawfully or unreasonably failed to allow applicant to take leave - Application for interim injunctions declined - Doctor |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as doctor. Applicant sought interim injunction that respondent lift suspension so applicant could practise until substantive hearing and respondent remove constraint preventing applicant from taking leave. Respondent claimed allegations against applicant should be made publicly available. Respondent claimed findings had been made relating to applicant’s workplace behaviour in independent reviewer and management reports. Applicant claimed publishing allegations highly prejudicial. Respondent claimed public had right to know reports relating to applicants had identified unsafe clinical practice. Applicant’s colleagues made complaint applicant’s behaviour impacted on applicant’s ability to manage relationships, creating ‘blame’ atmosphere and not following clinical processes. Respondent manager (“X”) and nurse (“Y”) claimed applicant had interrupted meeting between X and Y and refused to leave. Respondent nurse claimed applicant had prescribed medication without following protocols. Reviewer (“A”) recommended applicant be stood down on full pay during A’s investigation. Applicant suspended. Further allegations relating to applicant’s treatment of patients.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION: Authority ordered non-publication of applicant name and identifying information. Authority noted not appropriate forum for determining rights of consumers of health services. On balance and in circumstances, as applicant had not yet had opportunity to respondent to reports' allegations, in interests of justice that applicant’s identity withheld. Although applicant had not expressly requested permanent injunction, did not mean applicant could not seek interim injunction. Based on reports, evidence that sufficiently serious concerns about applicant’s conduct and respondent could lawfully rely on disciplinary policy to justify applicant’s continued suspension. Applicant’s continued suspension action of fair and reasonable employer. Monetary compensation unlikely to be adequate alternative remedy. Balance of convenience favoured continued suspension until disciplinary process finalised. Overall justice of case did not require applicant return to work. No evidence respondent unlawfully or unreasonably failed to allow applicant to take leave. Application for interim injunctions declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | Employment Contracts 1991;ERA s103A;ERA Second Schedule cl10;ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);Health and Disability Commissioner Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights Regulations 1996 |
| Cases Cited | Anderson v Employment Tribunal [1992] 1 ERNZ 500;Annan v Finn unreported, M Urlich, 13 September 2004, AA290/04;Burgess v Wairarapa Community Law Centre unreported, Goddard CJ, 30 August 1996, WEC54/96;Davis v Bank of New Zealand [2004] 2 ERNZ 511;New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [2008] ERNZ 196;R v Patterson [1992] 1 NZLR 45;White v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 574;X v Y Ltd and New Zealand Stock Exchange [1992] 1 ERNZ 863 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_130.pdf [pdf 361 KB] |