| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 113/01 |
| Determination date | 14 August 2001 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | AR Drake ; DF Farr |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | The Department for Courts v Crofts |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal of proceedings to Employment Court - Declaration sought that respondent in redundancy situation - Appeal against Tribunal determination concerning same parties to be heard in Employment Court - Correct focus was overlap between proceedings in the Authority and Court - Removal would have had no effect on determination of appeal - s95 Employment Contracts Act would have prohibited integration - Authority needed only to wait for outcome of appeal before being able to decide present case - No dual litigation if matter not removed - Whether important question of law - Whether employer entitled to make employees redundant after refusing to work changed hours - Whether passing of Employment Relations Act altered existing line of authority - Important question of law - Substantive application to be removed to Court |
| Result | Application granted ; Proceedings removed to Employment Court ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ECA s91;ECA s95;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Crofts v Department for Courts unreported, R Mirkin, 16 May 2001, HT 22/01;Niao v Tasman Pulp & Paper Co Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 805;Parsons v Upper Hutt City Council unreported, Shaw J, 19 Dec 2000, WC 62/00 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |