| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 389A/05 |
| Hearing date | 4 Oct 2005 |
| Determination date | 06 October 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | R Crotty, L Turner ; P Muir, N Dines |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | A v B |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - Application for interim orders restraining respondent from holding proposed disciplinary meeting - Respondent received draft report from third party that reflected badly on applicant - Agreement that applicant take paid leave and prepare response to report to be discussed at meeting - Applicant became concerned that respondent might seek to dismiss or further suspend at meeting - Filed application in Authority seeking full opportunity to respond to draft report and restraint on disciplinary action until draft report finalised and full and fair inquiry carried out - Mediated settlement - Applicant agreed to provide response to five issues by certain date and to attend meeting - Full response not provided by set date - Meeting postponed and applicant refused to answer questions when meeting did occur - More than merely arguable case required to support application - Starting point respondent entitled to seek to meet with applicant in disciplinary context - Risk of failure to provide proper notice of allegations not sufficient at current early stage for Authority to intervene - Seeking restraint due to alleged impropriety of addressing issues before report finalised problematic given mediated settlement requiring applicant to respond - Draft report contained material giving employer reasonable grounds for inquiring further into identified concerns - No strongly arguable case that real risk of infringing applicant’s rights if meeting proceeded - Applicant’s fears for reputation adequately addressed by continuation of non-publication order - Balance of convenience and overall justice favoured respondent - Interim relief declined - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Application by respondent for order requiring applicant to comply with mediated settlement requiring response and meeting on certain dates - Any order for compliance would require setting of new dates - No reason to anticipate lack of readiness on applicant’s part to respond - Parties ordered to agree on new date for meeting - Applicant to remain on paid leave until meeting - PENALTY - Respondent sought penalty for failure to comply with mediated settlement - Award of penalty would not add to resolution of complex matter |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s149(4) |
| Cases Cited | McMahon v Gould (1982) 1 ACLC 98;Russell v Wanganui City College [1998] 3 ERNZ 1076;Russell v Wanganui City College [1999] 1 ERNZ 654;Sotheran v Ansett New Zealand Limited [1999] 1 ERNZ 548;Wackrow v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited [2004] 1 ERNZ 350 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |