| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 22/07 |
| Hearing date | 27 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 09 March 2007 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Wilson ; B Dorking |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Fraser v The Vice Chancellor, University of Otago |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Whether communications between parties could be admitted as evidence to support claim grievance raised - Respondent claimed first notified of grievance outside 90 day period – Parties’ representatives had telephone conversation after mediation – Personal grievance raised in time during conversation - Respondent submitted conversation continuation of mediation and inadmissible under Employment Relations Act 2000 s148(1)(b) and (d) - Not necessary to hear statements of what occurred at mediation or determine admissibility because phone call not continuation of mediation process, even if initiative for it arose from that process – Respondent claimed communications protected from disclosure to Authority because without prejudice and therefore privileged – Respondent sent letter on same day as conversation confirming belief applicant had no grounds for claim - Claimed letter intended to be without prejudice although not marked as such – Authority doubted whether letter attracted privilege – Nothing in letter had bearing on negotiation or attempt to settle or could be construed as admission of liability – Representative’s raising of grievance during phone call not a communication intended to encourage and facilitate negotiation or settlement of dispute - Privilege only applied if dispute existed between parties – It could not exclude proof claim raised by one party – Privilege did not extend to raising of grievance as was independent of negotiations - Even if this not the case, Authority not satisfied letter privileged as contained response to grievance claim - Latter admissible as evidence grievance raised – Without prejudice communications could be admissible if avoided Authority being misled or deceived - That would result if conversation and letter deemed inadmissible – Unjust to applicant if respondent able to maintain not notified of grievance until statement of problem filed – Evidence grievance raised in communications admissible |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114(1), ERA s148(1)(b), ERA s148(1)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Cedenco Foods Ltd v State Insurance Ltd [1996] 10 PRNZ 142;Charlton v Colonial Homes Ltd [2001] ERNZ 759;Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Ltd 2 PRNZ 232 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 22_07.pdf [pdf 67 KB] |