| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 267 |
| Hearing date | 31-Aug-17 |
| Determination date | 04 September 2017 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | B Smith ; M Whisker |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pollard v Fuji Xerox New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Applicant sought interim reinstatement – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant and respondent sought non-publication orders – Managing Director |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION: Arguable that respondent’s refusal to provide documents to applicant was not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done. Respondent lost trust and confidence in applicant for him to return to his position. Weak argument for permanent reinstatement given applicant’s conduct resulted in significant financial consequences to respondent. Balance of convenience favours not reinstating applicant. Application for interim reinstatement dismissed. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No submissions or evidence presented toward applicant’s non-publication application. Application declined. Respondent applied for non-publication orders of client names. Names of clients would not be published in the determination. Non-publication orders not necessary. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | A Ltd v H [2016] NZCA 419;Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No2) [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466;X v Y Ltd v New Zealand Stock Exchange [1992] 1 ERNZ 863 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_267.pdf [pdf 199 KB] |