| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 171/06 |
| Hearing date | 22 Nov 2006 |
| Determination date | 28 November 2006 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Cressey ; T Drake & G Bevan |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Samuelu v Feltex Carpets Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | Godfrey Hirst New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant's claim granted urgency because submitted would not be offered employment by first respondent's purchaser, the second respondent (GH"), if not reinstated within five days - GH added as party after declined to offer applicant employment if reinstated - Respondents argued no urgency required - In absence of undertakings to preserve applicant's employment options, and following information sale and purchase agreement could settle next day, leading to first respondent's liquidation, Authority determined to commence investigation early next day - Accepted respondents placed under extreme time pressure and may have implications for natural justice - However, appeared no alternative that would not prejudice applicant's right to pursue employment with respondents - First respondent indicated prepared to hold maximum secured level of compensation available under Companies Act 1993 in trust account, to be paid out in accordance with any Authority determination - During investigation meeting, GH gave an undertaking to not assert that employment with first respondent at time sale settled was a pre-requisite to employment with it - GH able to argue employment not offered or accepted - Claims no longer needed urgency - Applicant's could now pursue claims separately against respondents - Respondents directed to file statements in reply" |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 171_06.pdf [pdf 16 KB] |