| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION - Applicant advised being investigated for breaches of internet policy - Applicant declared medically unfit for work due to anxiety and stress of allegations - Applicant alleged conducting misconduct inquiry would be unfair and sought interim declarations - Respondent opposed declarations but provided number of undertakings in response to applicant's application - Authority accepted it should assist parties by giving relief, even in interim, where party's rights or benefits are clearly under threat - However, Employment Relations Act 2000 founded on sanctity of agreement between parties and for first declaration applicant had to show serious risk agreed procedure for managing misconduct would be breached - Tenable arguable case - If applicant not granted declaration but substantively successful he would have gone through stress of disciplinary process unnecessarily - However, respondent was asserting rights under agreement and had made undertakings as to how it would deal with applicant fairly - Applicant already given two opportunities to convince respondent not to progress to disciplinary stage and had delayed making claim for interim relief - Balance of convenience favoured respondent - As overall justice favoured respondent, claim for interim declaration preventing disciplinary investigation dismissed - Applicant had arguable case for reinstatement to payroll but balance of convenience favoured respondent as damages adequate remedy - Overall justice also favoured respondent and application for interim declaration that respondent pay applicant for absence when sick leave had run out dismissed - No claim before Authority about termination of employment on medical grounds so could not say arguable case for third declaration - However, Authority must be astute to ensure it resolves employment relationship problems and not focus merely on legal causes of action - Appropriate for Authority to determine whether declaration should be granted even though no specific proceedings on point - Applicant's concern about losing employment on medical grounds inextricably intertwined with present claims - Balance of convenience favoured applicant as possible he would return to work after substantive determination - Interests of justice not served by respondent progressing medical issues when the causes of applicant's absence were still before Authority - Declaration that respondent should take no steps in any process which might lead to termination of applicant's employment for incapacity or through medical retirement until Authority had determined substantive proceedings - Business analyst |