| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 39/06 |
| Hearing date | 13 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 20 March 2006 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | R Buchanan ; S Langton |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Vailima v General Distributors Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – JURISDICTION - Interim injunction – Applicant had been unable to attend work for six months because of stress – Alleged stress caused by work related matters such as excessive hours, being told to “hard manage” certain employees, and disciplinary investigation (which resulted in no disciplinary action) – Had been on unpaid sick leave for five months after exhausting paid sick leave entitlement – Sought reinstatement to payroll – Not claim for interim reinstatement as framed but in effect claim for interim injunction – Authority’s jurisdiction to entertain type of application currently disputed in some areas but provided for in Jerram v Franklin Veterinary Services (cited below) – Tenable arguable case – Applicant’s continued employment with respondent not in jeopardy – Respondent would not suffer as greatly relatively in financial terms as applicant if her application were not granted – Applicant had given undertaking as to damages but without financial information to support it – Question whether undertaking adequate if respondent ultimately successful – Balance of convenience favoured respondent – Only new factor applicable in overall justice criterion was relative strength of parties’ cases – Applicant had substantial hurdles to meet – Overall justice favoured respondent – Application dismissed – Advisable that applicant and medical advisers cooperate speedily and fully with respondent to provide agreed rehabilitation programme to facilitate applicant’s full return to work as soon as possible |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Bisson unreported, Shaw J, 17 June 2005, CC 6A/05;Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 342;Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 1;Godfrey v Sensation Yachts Ltd unreported, Travis J, 29 June 1999, AC 44A/99;Habgood v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd unreported, R Monaghan, 31 May 2005, AA 202/05;Jerram v Franklin Veterinary Services (1977) Ltd [2001] 1 ERNZ 157;Melville v Chatham Islands Council [1999] 2 ERNZ 76;Whelan v Board of Trustees of Hagley Community College [1996] 2 ERNZ 97 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 39_06.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |