| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 70/06 |
| Hearing date | 12 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 15 May 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; P Zwart |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hunt and Anor v Christchurch Yarns New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Tamaiparea |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicants clocked each other in on number of occasions – Done for convenience not financial gain for either applicant - Caught on security cameras – Both aware of recent memo reminding employees that clocking someone else’s card serious misconduct warranting dismissal – Summarily dismissed – Applicants’ to argue technical breach of house rules did not amount to serious misconduct – Serious and arguable issue existed – Issue was whether breach of rules by applicants substantively justified dismissal – Damages not adequate remedy given applicants’ current financial difficulties and value of right to work – Both applicants’ work records previously unblemished – Alleged lack of remorse should not prevent interim reinstatement – Applicants gave undertakings as to damages – Balance of convenience favoured applicants – Significant that reinstatement primary remedy under Employment Relations Act 2000 – No strong foreseeable likelihood that permanent reinstatement would be refused if applicants ultimately successful – Overall justice favoured applicants – Interim reinstatement granted – Order to take effect 48 hours from determination – Textile workers |
| Result | Application granted ; Interim reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s125;ERA s127(1) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland DHB v X (no 1) [2005] 1 ERNZ 487;Counties Manukau District Health Board v Trembath [2001] ERNZ 847;Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 70_06.pdf [pdf 74 KB] |