| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 123 |
| Determination date | 12 April 2013 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| 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 (“EC”) – Matter concerned whether respondent breached good faith obligations during bargaining for collective employment agreement – Authority found tortuous nature of bargaining between parties and litigation connected to matter meant important questions of law likely to arise – Found questionable whether matter of such urgency that in public interest matter be removed immediately – Found EC currently had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or similar related issues – Found appropriate in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC – Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Applicant sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important question of law likely to arise, matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed, EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or substantially similar issues and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith obligations during bargaining for collective employment agreement and undermined bargaining. Respondent did not oppose removal of matter.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: While application for removal did not identify in detail important questions of law likely to arise, tortuous nature of bargaining between parties and litigation connected to current matter meant likely important questions of law would require determination by EC. Questionable whether matter of such urgency that in public interest matter be removed immediately. EC currently had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or similar related issues. Appropriate in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s159(1)(b)(i);ERA s178;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 52 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_123.pdf [pdf 95 KB] |