| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 74/07 |
| Hearing date | 2 May 2007 |
| Determination date | 08 May 2007 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Cranney & A Hughes ; L Taylor & K Elkin |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota & Ors v New Zealand Racing Board |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Members of first applicant union made redundant by respondent – Argued dismissals unjustified and respondent misconstrued its functions under s9(1)(a) Racing Act 2003 (“RA”) by making decision to terminate on improper basis – Respondent argued claim did not fall within examples of employment relationship problems (“ERP”) in s161 Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") – Authority found s161 ERA examples not exclusive and wide meaning allowed in s5 ERA – In any event, applicant did not rely exclusively on interpretation of RA – It alleged unjustified dismissal, which on its face meant could lodge personal grievance - Claims within s161(e) ERA – Respondent claimed Authority had no jurisdiction to interpret RA provision and claim not personal grievance or dispute – Applicant asserted Authority had jurisdiction by reason of s113 and s194A ERA - Original statement of problem did not explicitly refer to personal grievance – Authority found, however, it plainly fell with terms of s194A ERA as sought to advance ERP by using ERA problem solving provisions – Amended statement of problem referred to unjustified dismissals, bringing matter within s113 ERA – Authority satisfied claim concerned an ERP – Even so, Authority had power to reach conclusions on actual nature of claim – Authority had jurisdiction to hear matter based on proper interpretation of statements of problem – If had found otherwise, no other redress possible given effect of s194A(2) which precluded recourse to High Court - Respondent also contended s9(1)(a) RA “non-justiciable” as no statutory duty created giving rise to judicial enforcement – Issue for determination exclusively whether Authority had jurisdiction - Not necessary to hear evidence whether respondent misdirected itself in relation to its functions" |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s5;ERA s113;ERA s161;ERA s161(e);ERA s161(r);ERA s194A;Racing Act 2003 s9;Racing Act 2003 s9(1);Racing Act 2003 s9(1)(a);Racing Act 2003 s9(2) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand [1994] 1 NZLR 551;BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2006] 1 NZLR 351, 353;Hulse v Ministry of Justice unreported, Travis J, 28 November 1997, AEC 37A/97;McCulloch v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [1998] 3 ERNZ 378 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 74_07.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |