| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 316 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Brosnahan ; E Child |
| Parties | Ramkissoon v The Commissioner of New Zealand Police |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Authority found issues surrounding scope of power to review appointments under State Sector Act 1988 and scope of disadvantage grievance in context of promotion or new appointment important questions of law likely to arise – Found in all circumstances appropriate matter should be determined by EC – Matter removed to EC – Police officer |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as police officer. Respondent sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important question of law likely to arise and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Applicant appointed to sergeant’s position but appointment cancelled subsequently after review. Applicant brought personal grievance alleging no jurisdiction for human resources department to initiate review and flaws in conduct of review. Respondent claimed scope of power to review appointments under State Sector Act 1988 and scope of disadvantage grievance in context of promotion or new appointment important questions of law likely to arise. Respondent claimed in public interest for EC to hear matter involving serious allegations about respondent’s senior officers and case may involve difficult questions of evidence better suited to more formal information management regime of EC. Applicant resided overseas and claimed arrangements already made to attend investigation meeting. Applicant claimed would be prejudiced by further delay.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Issues surrounding scope of power to review appointments under State Sector Act 1988 and scope of disadvantage grievance in context of promotion or new appointment important questions of law that would be decisive of one of applicant’s grievances and may be of wider interest. Question whether reinstatement to higher position possible may also arise. Important questions of law may not arise directly in applicant’s other personal grievances but not appropriate to sever case. Seniority of respondent’s officers subject to applicant’s allegations not sufficient for matter to be removed but appropriate to consider nature of allegations made. Appropriate to consider likely need for more formal information management regime of EC and possibility of applicant producing further information at late stage. Although respondent’s application for removal relatively late and Authority reluctant to add to considerable delays in case, applicant responsible for some earlier delays. Appropriate that in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(d);Policing Act 2008 s62;State Sector Act 1988 s65 |
| Cases Cited | Andrew v Commissioner of Police unreported, Colgan J, 31 July 2003, CC21A/03;New Zealand Air Line Pilots Assoc IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 73;Victoria University of Wellington v Haddon [1996] 1 ERNZ 139; [1996] 2 NZLR 409 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_316.pdf [pdf 168 KB] |