| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 80/05 |
| Hearing date | 27 May 2005 |
| Determination date | 30 May 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; S Hornsby |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Coom v Christchurch City Council |
| Summary | INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – Unjustified dismissal – Section 103A ERA applied – Applicant told third party would reimburse for loss suffered by third party breaking investment because of late payment of invoice by applicant – Applicant told third party to rewrite invoice to say money was for “staff training” rather than lost interest – Whether arguable case - Respondent’s justification for dismissal to be judged in accordance with s103A ERA – Some arguable points but not a strongly arguable case of unjustified dismissal – Balance of convenience in favour of respondent – Applicant sought vindication – Any vindication not achieved by interim reinstatement - Overall justice in favour of respondent – Application declined - Team leader |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Melville v Chatham Islands Council [1999] 2 ERNZ 76 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 80_05.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |