| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 257 |
| Determination date | 23 November 2012 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | N Ironside ; J Goldstein, L Ryder |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Vollmer v The Wood Life Care (2007) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence – Parties disputed what documents should be disclosed - Applicant sought disclosure of further minutes of question and answer meetings, further minutes of RN/EN meetings, earlier records of respondent’s monthly infection control register and human resources manual – Respondent sought disclosure of notes made by applicant’s lawyer when interviewing witnesses - Authority noted could not discard rules of evidence – Authority found all minutes of question and answer meetings necessary to proceedings and relevant to matters in question – Found RN/EN meeting minutes useful and would assist Authority - Respondent ordered to produce minutes of question and answer meetings and minutes of RN/EN meetings – Found copies of monthly infection control register from specified date helpful for Authority when establishing facts and determining matter - Respondent ordered to produce copies of infection control register from specified date - Respondent ordered to provide index of human resources manual to Authority and applicant to indicate policies considered relevant as soon as possible – Found in interests of justice that copies of further minutes and infection control register records from specified date be provided to applicant as soon as possible – Found not clear why respondent considered interview notes taken by applicant’s lawyer necessary to resolve proceedings - Respondent ordered to provide infection control policy and applicant’s position description as infection control co-ordinator if not already available to Authority |
| Abstract | Parties disputed whether particular documents should be disclosed. Applicant claimed documents were relevant to applicant’s claim had been unjustifiably dismissed. Applicant sought disclosure of further minutes of question and answer meetings and RN/EN meetings, earlier records of respondent’s monthly infection control register and human resources manual. Applicant sought order that respondent confirm by oath that balance of listed information requested by applicant did not exist. Respondent claimed had already disclosed relevant minutes and infection control register records and human resources manual not relevant to proceedings. Respondent claimed had already asked applicant to indicate what human resource policies required but applicant did not request particular policies. Applicant claimed all minutes of question and answer meetings were relevant to issue of respondent’s established procedure for recording infections, all minutes of RN/EN meetings relevant to second allegation against applicant and further infection control register records relevant to dispute as to what infections were recorded on register. Respondent claimed some of information requested by applicant included confidential information relating to respondent’s residents and should not be disclosed. Respondent sought disclosure of notes made by applicant’s lawyer when interviewing witnesses. Applicant claimed interview notes privileged. Respondent claimed relevant provisions in Employment Relations Act 2000 did not require parties to exchange documents and sufficient if Authority alone had access to particular documents.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Authority could consider evidence which might not be strictly legal evidence but did not mean Authority could discard rules of evidence. All minutes of question and answer meetings necessary to proceedings and relevant to matters in question. Respondent ordered to produce minutes of question and answer meetings. RN/EN meeting minutes useful and would assist Authority. Respondent ordered to produce minutes of RN/EN meetings. Copies of monthly infection control register from specified date helpful for Authority when establishing facts and determining matter. Respondent ordered to produce copies of infection control register from specified date. Arguable that at least some of policies in respondent’s human resources manual relevant to Authority making full investigation but full human resources manual not relevant. Respondent ordered to provide index of human resources manual to Authority and applicant to indicate policies considered relevant as soon as possible. In interests of justice that copies of further minutes and infection control register records from specified date be provided to applicant as soon as possible. Apart from evidence of particular employee (“M”), Authority would make inquiries at substantive investigation as to whether listed information existed. Respondent advised to confirm that alleged notes taken by M did not exist and possible Authority might need to hear evidence of M. Respondent could obscure names of residents and other employees in evidence produced. Not clear why respondent considered interview notes taken by applicant’s lawyer necessary to resolve proceedings. Applicant not required to supply notes of interviews. Respondent ordered to provide infection control policy and applicant’s position description as infection control co-ordinator if not already available to Authority. |
| Result | Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s157;ERA s157(1);ERA s157(2);ERA s160;ERA s160(1)(a);ERA s160(2);ERA Second Schedule cl3(1);Evidence Act 2006 s56 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_257.pdf [pdf 198 KB] |