| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 265 |
| Determination date | 26 June 2014 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | H Fulton ; D Dickinson |
| Parties | Tozer v Franix Construction Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent sought removal of matter to Employment Court (EC") on grounds EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or similar issues and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC - Authority's determination that applicant employee being challenged in EC - Whether applicant's substantive claim should be removed to EC" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: In event respondent's challenge unsuccessful Authority would investigate applicant's substantive claims. Authority institution of first instance and applicant's claims of nature dealt with regularly by Authority. Respondent's arguments that claims before Authority and EC similar or related, and compelling pragmatic grounds favoured removal, not sufficient to warrant removal. Application for removal declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s178;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(c) |
| Cases Cited | 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;Tozer v Franix Construction Ltd [2014] NZERA Auckland 170 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_265.pdf [pdf 219 KB] |