| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 218 |
| Determination date | 06 June 2014 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | E Miles ; R Upton |
| Parties | Burke v Employers and Manufacturers Assoc (Northern) Inc |
| Summary | COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for non-publication of confidential information - Whether appropriate to close investigation meeting to public - Employment lawyer - Solicitor |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Evidence to be considered related to names of businesses that sought employment law advice from respondent in capacity as specialist in employment law and employment relations. Requirement of confidentiality imposed on legal practice included protection of clients' identities. Authority ordered non-publication of identity of respondent's clients and information relating to services rendered and fees charged to identifiable clients. Authority ordered non-publication of information relating to pay of respondent's employees not party to proceedings. Not appropriate to extend non-publication order to cover applicant's remuneration details as such information essential part of investigation. Authority ordered non-publication of fees charged by, and paid to, respondent's consultants. Authority ordered non-publication of information relating to fees generated by respondent's employees other than applicant. Respondent's application for non-publication of evidence given or pleadings filed in matter framed far too widely and unnecessary given other orders made. Information relating to employees' salaries and consultants' fee income able to be protected by measures other than exclusion of public from investigation meeting. Doubtful whether appropriate or practicable to refer to respondent's clients by alternative names given potentially large number of clients involved and risk of inadvertent disclosure during investigation meeting. Risk of adverse consequence eventuating probable rather than merely possible. Investigation meeting to be closed to public. Leave reserved for applicant to apply for variation of exclusion order once all evidence lodged and clearer extent to which evidence relating to respondent's clients able to be restricted to part of investigation meeting. |
| Result | Application partially granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s160(1)(e);ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 Chapter 8;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 r8;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 r8.1;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 r8.2;Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 r8.3;Minimum Wage Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Clark v Attorney-General (No 1) [2005] NZAR 481;Oldco PTI (New Zealand) Ltd v Houston [2006] ERNZ 221 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_218.pdf [pdf 248 KB] |