| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 331/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 30 October 2006 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | B Knight & P Carrucan (in person) ; M Hall-Collins |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Knight & Ors v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | Carrucan & Webb, Cityline (NZ) Ltd t/a Stagecoach Auckland |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Application for removal to Employment Court (EC") - Respondents claimed Authority had no power to investigate matter - Applicants' Union party to Authority investigation about interpretation of annual leave entitlements in collective employment agreement - EC to hear Union's de novo challenge to Authority's determination - Applicants claimed had no knowledge of basis of challenge and application lodged before aware of challenge - Authority concluded investigation determined matters in dispute between Union, other parties and respondents - Live issues or employment relationship problem no longer existed - Could be nothing to transfer to EC - Further, applicants' Union party to challenge - Substantive issue would be heard de novo, therefore substantive issue already before EC - Most significantly, none of applicants were parties to previous investigation - Authority understood applicants precluded from asking matter be removed or determination challenged given had "no standing" - If applicants sought to be heard independently from Union it would be best heard by EC - Consideration given to whether present application really one for "rehearing" - Discerned no proper grounds for rehearing, however, was not a conclusive determination - Problematic that parties to substantive issue did not know of present application or one for rehearing - De novo challenge process ought to run its course so that substantive matter judicially decided - Authority declined to pursue present application as one for rehearing - If still desirous of rehearing after hearing of challenge, applicants could assess whether to pursue new application with benefit of Court's findings, on notice to affected parties, and with properly specified grounds - Authority declined to investigate matters - No formal orders" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s179 |
| Cases Cited | Stagecoach New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Tramways Union (Auckland Branch) and Ors unreported, M Urlich, 31 May 2006, AA 191/06 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 331_06.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |