| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 139 |
| Determination date | 11 April 2014 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | A Russell ; S Turner, S Clark |
| Parties | Walters-Gleeson v Whangarei District Council |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant sought removal of matter to Employment Court (EC") on grounds important question of law likely to arise and matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed - Council employee - Applicant dismissed after signing form nominating mayoral candidate - Whether ability of local government employer to develop and enforce policies that purported to restrict employee's statutory right to participate in democratic process of council elections important question of law - Electoral rights - Freedom of association - Personal assistant" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Whether respondent's code of conduct and election protocols more restrictive than permitted by Local Electoral Act 2001 and Local Government Act 2002 important question of law. Novelty of question of law not factor in determining whether matter should be removed. Question of limits on freedoms of local government employees to do what other ordinary citizen might do considered in previous decisions. No entitlement in Employment Relations Act 2000 to access guidance from specialist EC in first instance. Notion that ruling from EC would assist local authorities in updating election protocols speculative. Media interest in case not relevant factor in deciding whether to remove matter. No information suggested applicant's case needed to be resolved more promptly than other personal grievance applications waiting to be heard. Question of law should not be given disproportionate weight when considering how best to deal with whole case at first instance. Number of factual issues likely to be important to ultimate decision on justifiability of dismissal. Complexities in relationship between different legal sources investigated and determined by Authority routinely. Lower cost to parties likely if matter heard by Authority first and preservation of parties' statutory right to challenge important. Challenge not inevitable. Application for removal declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s177;ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s173(3);ERA Second Schedule cl1;Local Electoral Act 2001;Local Electoral Act 2001 s4;Local Electoral Act 2001 s26;Local Government Act 2002;Local Government Act 2002 Seventh Schedule cl36(3);New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s5;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s12;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s16;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s17 |
| Cases Cited | Hall v Westpac New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 66;Hobbs v North Shore City Council [1992] 1 ERNZ 32;Lowe v Tararua District Council [1994] 1 ERNZ 887;McAlister v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, Shaw J, 11 May 2005, AC22/05;NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 74;Poole v Horticulture & Food Research Institute of NZ Ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 869;Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart (No 2) [2008] ERNZ 249 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_139.pdf [pdf 255 KB] |