| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 30A/07 |
| Hearing date | 8 Mar 2007 |
| Determination date | 21 March 2007 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | M Robinson ; S Langton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Carrothers v Jasons Travel Media Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether Authority could recall determination for purpose of changing content – Whether Authority could issue non-publication order in respect of content after determination issued – Parties sought permanent non-publication order of some content in substantive determination – Required changes to determination as issued - While s174(b) Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") stated Authority need not set out all or any evidence heard, Authority did not take this to mean should not or could not do so, particularly if part of process of setting out required findings of fact and conclusions – No application for non-publication orders made during investigation process – Application of this type was “matter” within scope of s221 ERA – Arguable error or defect under s221(b) ERA – Doubtful Authority could issue non-publication order once finalised determination issued to parties – “Recall” was means open to Authority to address substantial merits of application if for “very special reason” justice required it – Whether references to employees, products and client were, or likely to be, so commercially embarrassing that amounted to special circumstances requiring recall – Privacy Act 1993 principles did not apply - Authority not persuaded real or significant commercial embarrassment likely - Nothing to suggest significant media interest likely – Doubtful detail would meet standard for non-publication order during or before investigation meeting - Authority could not agree with submission, on utility-based approach, that determination could be recalled and names removed because would be no less of a determination – Statutory framework provided opportunities to resolve matters confidentially – Where parties chose investigation they put beyond their control extent of information revealed about parties, witnesses and business – Determination not a draft issued for consideration and blue pencilling of parties – Once issued, determination “must stand for better or worse, subject of course, to appeal” – However, left open prospect may be rare case where for special reasons justice requires otherwise – Recall of determination to make changes sought not required by any special reason to do justice in circumstances of present case - Application declined – Interim non-publication order presently in place extended 29 days to allow for prospect of challenge" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ECA s97;ECA s109;ERA s137;ERA s141;ERA s157;ERA s160;ERA s160(1)(e);ERA s174;ERA s174(b);ERA s221;ERA s221(b);ERA s221(d);ERA Second Schedule cl4;ERA Second Schedule cl10;ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);ERA Third Schedule cl12;Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Carrothers v Jasons Travel Media Ltd unreported, M Urlich, 12 February 2007, AA 30/07;GWD Russells (Gore) Ltd v Muir [1993] 2 ERNZ 332;Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 66;Y v D [2003] 1 ERNZ 623;Y v D [2004] 1 ERNZ 1;Z v A [1993] 2 ERNZ 469 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 30a_07.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |