| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 50 |
| Determination date | 19 February 2016 |
| Member | Rachel Larmer |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; C Pidduck |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Takai v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Applicant sought interim reinstatement – Meat process worker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION: Arguable that respondent failed to give applicant opportunity to respond to concerns and have explanations considered. Arguable that dismissal substantively unjustified. Arguable case for unjustified dismissal. Limited alternative employment available for applicant. Possible that applicant’s job would still be required even if large layoffs made. Arguable case for reinstatement. Unlikely that applicant would breach health and safety if reinstated. Respondent’s concerns regarding health and safety could be addressed by thorough safety briefing. Applicant’s financial concerns could be met by award of damages. Balance of convenience neutral. Context of matter and ongoing dispute with union important. Other employee dismissed for same problem reinstated. Overall justice in favour of applicant. Application for injunctive relief granted. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s125;ERA s127 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 204 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_50.pdf [pdf 168 KB] |