| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 344/07 |
| Determination date | 31 October 2007 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | P Clark (in person) ; C Chilwell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Clark v Dargaville High School Board of Trustees |
| Summary | JURISIDICITON - Whether Authority could consider all of applicant’s claims - Applicant alleged constructively dismissed - Previously commenced proceedings in District Court alleging respondent negligent in duty of care to provide safe workplace, breached contractual obligations to approve salary increase, defamed him through comments in personnel file and failed in obligation to support him to full teacher registration - Proceedings stayed by Court as matter within Authority’s jurisdiction - Court reserved leave for applicant to seek to remove stay if Authority unable to remedy legitimate grievance - Taken as reference to whether Authority could order injunction requiring removal of documents from applicant’s personnel file - Authority able to investigate all of applicant’s claims and had adequate powers to remedy any legitimate grievance - Injunctive relief to enforce contractual obligations open to Authority as remedy – Claim pleaded in “language” of torts - However, Authority not bound to treat matter as type described - Factual basis of claims gave rise to employment relationship problems as defined by Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) - Matter within exclusive jurisdiction of Authority - Although exemplary damages not available Authority did not consider this would support argument applicant might have outstanding claims to be heard in civil courts - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court - Respondent submitted applicant likely to challenge any adverse determination - Also concerned about applicant’s ability to pay costs if unsuccessful - Applicant presently living overseas and respondent wanted security for costs, an order it submitted was only available from Employment Court - Neither ground triggered specific criteria in ERA - No factual foundation offered for suggestion security for costs required or that applicant would be unlikely to meet costs if ordered - If Authority not able to order security for costs, that could not, on its own, be reason for removal to Court - Such orders unnecessary in light of modest level of costs usually awarded in Authority - Application for removal declined - Matter to proceed to investigation - Teacher |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s157;ERA s160(3);ERA s161;ERA s161(1);ERA s161(1)(r);ERA s162;ERA s178(2) |
| Cases Cited | A-G v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 (EC);Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd v Kapadia [2006] 1 ERNZ 639;Clark v Northland Polytechnic (EC Auckland, AC 15A/99, 19 October 1999, Travis J).;Credit Consultants Debt Services v Wilson (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 205;French v Chief Executive of Dept of Corrections [2002] 1 ERNZ 325 (EC);Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd v New Zealand Meat & Related Trades Union Inc [2006] ERNZ 312;Kostic v Dodd & Milligan t/a Allan Milligan Cars and/or Motorworld Systems Ltd unreported, Couch J, 11 July 2007, CC 14/07;Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 188 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 344_07.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |