| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 304 |
| Determination date | 03 September 2012 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; K Dunn |
| Parties | Maritime Union of New Zealand v Ports of Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court – Authority found no important question of law likely to arise – Found proceedings concerning strikes and lockouts squarely within Authority’s jurisdiction and Employment Relations Act 2000 contemplates matter being dealt with through investigation rather than adversarial process – Application for removal declined |
| Abstract | Respondent sought removal of matter on grounds that important question of law likely to arise other than incidentally and in all circumstances matter should be determined by Employment Court (“EC”). Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s alleged use of contractors to perform work of striking employees. Applicant sought documents from respondent relevant to matter. Respondent claimed not obliged to provide documents where applicant seeking penalty. Respondent claimed ability of Authority to compel provision of documents where penalty sought important question of law likely to arise. Applicant claimed if matter removed to EC discovery would be governed by Employment Court Regulations 2000 which prevent discovery of documents where penalty sought and no question of law would arise. Respondent claimed matter important and removal would allow EC to deal with matter as part of adversarial process.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant correct no important question of law likely to arise. Fact matter important to respondent not sufficient for matter to be removed. Proceedings concerning strikes and lockouts squarely within Authority’s jurisdiction and Employment Relations Act 2000 contemplates matter being dealt with through investigation rather than adversarial process. Application for removal declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ECR r39;ECR r39(2);ERA s97;ERA s161(1)(l);ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Aarts v Barnados New Zealand [2012] NZERA Auckland 22;New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering & Related Trades IUOW v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 10 June 2002, AA172/02 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_304.pdf [pdf 271 KB] |