| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 356 |
| Determination date | 15 November 2017 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R White ; P Pa'u |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Maday v Avondale College Board of Trustees |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence – Whether evidence from witnesses and any other disputed document to be disclosed to Authority – Whether Education Council (“EC”) required to attend investigation meeting to give evidence – Whether applicant can rely on EC’s decision at Authority – Whether respondent’s strikeout claim should be considered – Whether applicant to provide statement and be available for cross examination |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Phone memos of witnesses who engaged with EC to be disclosed to Authority on confidential basis to assess utility for investigation meeting. One document in dispute to be reviewed for its probative value. If evidence proves valuable Authority will engage with the Board of Trustees to determine a basis for material to be released. Education Council should attend investigation meeting to allow consideration of Council’s alternative conclusion to that reached by Board of Trustees. Applicant can rely on Education Council decision in prosecution of her personal grievance claim. Respondent did not make strikeout claim. No strikeout claim to consider. Statement from applicant to be prepared and filed, and applicant to be available to give evidence. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_356.pdf [pdf 172 KB] |