| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 94/04 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2004 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | GS Finnigan ; G Pratt |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gill v Porfiriadis |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for reopening Authority investigation - Applicant refused to attend investigation meeting - Respondent found to have been unjustifiably dismissed and awarded remedies and costs - Applicant's approach to Authority's procedures and reasons for non-attendance unsatisfactory - Essential nature of applicant's defences were available to and considered by Authority despite her non-attendance - Applicant was responsible for possibility that credibility issues and particular details might have been decided differently had she attended - Argument that remedies excessive better suited to challenge than application to re-open - Interests of justice require finality |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl4 |
| Cases Cited | J S Whyte Ltd v Wellington District Hotel etc IUOW [1984] ACJ 995;Nationwide Horse Transport Ltd v Gregory [1994] 1 ERNZ 440;Porfiriadis v Gill t/a Auckland Metro Doctors unreported, J Scott, 29 July 2003, AA 227/03;Porfiriadis v Gill t/a Auckland Metro Doctors unreported, J Scott, 3 September 2003, AA 227A/03;Porfiriadis v Gill t/a Auckland Metro Doctors unreported, J Scott, 17 November 2003, AA 363/03;Ports of Auckland Ltd v New Zealand Waterfront Workers Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85;Squire v Waitaki NZ Refrigerating Ltd [1985] ACJ 839 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |