| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 319/07 |
| Hearing date | 1 Oct 2007 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2007 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | S Scott ; A Gane |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Te Ao v Department of Labour |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of s148 Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") – Respondent wanted to discuss applicant’s behaviour during mediation after received complaint – Applicant contended statute barred from discussing mediation and sought determination s148 ERA meant unable to release information – Both parties to mediation consented to release of information under s148(1) – Applicant argued disciplinary process was “proceedings” under ERA as could lead to action in Authority or Employment Court, and barred by s148(2) from “giving evidence” about “provision of services” at mediation in question – Also submitted parties’ waiver of confidentiality did not apply to provision of services under s148(2) – Respondent argued investigation of complaints necessary to preserve integrity of mediation process and give effect to ERA – Respondent’s disciplinary investigation not proceedings under ERA and applicant not “giving evidence” – Disciplinary process clearly for “purposes of giving effect to the Act” – Requirement for Chief Executive (“CE”) to ensure mediator able to act independently did not mandate mediator to act outside general instructions given by CE in terms of s153(2) – Applicant’s interpretation went beyond purpose of s148 and mitigated against requirement CE provide mediation services which promote fast and effective resolution of employment relationship problems – Applicant not barred by s148 ERA from attending disciplinary investigation or answering questions about way provided mediation services – Question answered in favour of respondent - Although Authority not required to address question of whether applicant could bring evidence if brought personal grievance to Authority, it commented mischief rule would have bearing of interpretation of s148(2) – Statutory bar on applicant’s evidence would be against principles of natural justice and inconsistent with objects or purpose of ERA – Alternatively, on plain meaning of s148, parties’ approval meant s148(2) did not operate as bar – Mediator" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s44(1);ERA s143;ERA s144;ERA s145;ERA s145(1)(a);ERA s145(1)(b);ERA s146;ERA s147;ERA s148;ERA s148(1);ERA s148(2);ERA s148(6);ERA s148(6)(c);ERA s153;ERA s153(2);ERA Part 10;Interpretation Act 1999 s5;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 |
| Cases Cited | Jesudhass v Just Hotel Ltd [2006] ERNZ 173 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 319_07.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |