| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 164/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 24 November 2006 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | R Thompson ; T McGinn |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Ford v Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Application for leave to raise personal grievance out of time - Respondent claimed no exceptional circumstances and applicant exaggerated extent of incapacity - Applicant informed had cancer and required surgery - Told dismissed while driving home - Underwent treatment for next four months and representative unable to make contact with her - Authority preferred representative's evidence did not tell respondent no grievance would be raised - Applicant claimed so traumatised by dismissal unable to properly consider raising grievance within time - Also relied on impact of cancer - Applicant limited contact with outside world and dealt only with necessitates of living - State continued throughout 90 day period for raising personal grievance - Applicant to succeed in reliance on s115(a) Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") - Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan (cited below) distinguished as no preparatory steps taken by applicant - Also succeeded under s114(4)(a) ERA - Authority did not accept s114(4)(a) should be read as if included s115(a) - Limiting it in that way would be nonsense as exceptional circumstances would not include external supervening event - Words in s114, as interpreted by cases under ERA and previous Act, must be applied - No doubt applicant's diagnosis and treatment for potentially life-threatening cancer during three months under scrutiny amounted to exceptional circumstance - Respondent claimed applicant delayed providing details of alleged grievance until shortly before investigation meeting - Able to respond to grievance when received letter seeking consent to raise it out of time - Even if grievance not properly raised until proceedings, it did not advance respondent's case - Applicant signalled before dismissal that decision would be challenged - Previous dealings between respondent and applicant's representative - In circumstances, would expect respondent to preserve evidence - No evidence respondent prejudiced by granting of leave - Just to grant leave - Parties directed to mediation" |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Parties directed to mediation ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s114(4);ERA s114(4)(a);ERA s114(5);ERA s115;ERA s115(a) |
| Cases Cited | Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] 1 ERNZ 517;Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2004] 2 ERNZ 9;Wilkins & Field Ltd v Fortune [1998] 2 ERNZ 70 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 164_06.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |