| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 78A/05 |
| Determination date | 03 October 2005 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | P Butler ; S Fairclough |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Miller v Michael Pearcy Investments Ltd t/a Field Maple |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court - Authority determined that applicant was employee but had yet to determine personal grievance - Respondent challenged determination to Court - Applicant sought to remove entire matter to Court - Clearly proceeding before Court was between same parties and involved issues related to issues applicant proposed should be removed - However issues not part of same factual matrix which formed basis of applicant's claim in respect of personal grievance - Removal declined - Substantive matter to be accorded priority once decision of Court became available |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s64;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(c) |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 78a_05.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |