| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 228/04 |
| Hearing date | 5 Jul 2004 |
| Determination date | 06 July 2004 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | C Podwin ; R Richardson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jopson v Eurest New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for leave to bring personal grievance out of time - Dismissed for serious misconduct - Whether exceptional circumstances - Applicant alleged failures in employment induction process - Alleged failures included respondent did not go through employment agreement with her, not being provided with a copy of agreement, and not having read manual which set out 90 day requirement when raising a grievance - Alleged unaware of right to challenge and ninety day requirement - After dismissal applicant suffered loss of two unborn children - Applicant not credible witness - Not convinced applicant ignorant of right to bring grievance - Exceptional circumstances due to loss of unborn children and other health problems did not cause delay in raising grievance - Real reason for delay was applicant wanting to know outcome of police investigation before taking action - Application dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s115(c) |
| Cases Cited | Muggeridge v Miden Construction Co Ltd [1992] 1 ERNZ 232;Thomson v Thomson [1992] 2 ERNZ 84 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |