| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 197/04 |
| Determination date | 08 June 2004 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Henderson (In person) ; E Butcher |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Henderson v Ernst & Young |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for stay - Application for compliance order against respondent struck out - Costs awarded against applicant - Applicant had challenged determination to Employment Court and sought stay of proceedings - Appeal joined respondent's counsel in Authority as second respondent - Applicant argued second respondent acted for first respondent without applicant's consent - Employer not required to have employee's consent before authorising representative - Applicant had complained to Privacy Commission about fact respondent produced before Authority decision of Reviewer of Complaints Procedures for Institute of Chartered Accountants - No reason to stay determination until Privacy Commission investigation completed - Applicant's right of appeal not rendered nugatory if stay not granted - No security or undertaking provided - Application for stay declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s99;ERA s179;ERA s236(3) |
| Cases Cited | Foodtown Supermarkets Ltd v NZ Shop Employees etc IUOW [1983] ACJ 775;NZ Post Primary Teachers Association v Attorney-General [1991] 3 ERNZ 708 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |