| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 139/08 |
| Hearing date | 6 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 14 April 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | A (in person) ; B (in person), C (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | A v B and C & Anor |
| Other Parties | D Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Applicant named first respondents personally as employer in Statement of Problem - First respondents claimed applicant employed by second respondent company - Written employment agreement identified employer as different entity - Entity did not have legal personality - First respondents provided letter from IRD directing second respondent, as applicant’s employer, to make deductions form applicant’s pay - Authority found no evidence first respondents represented themselves to applicant as personally employing applicant - Authority satisfied second respondent applicant’s employer - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Application for leave to raise grievance out of time - Applicant alleged delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances - Applicant claimed sexually harassed during employment and so traumatised by it unable to properly consider raising personal grievance within 90 day period - Authority accepted applicant incapacitated when employment ended - However, found evidence did not establish incapacity caused by events giving rise to personal grievance - Authority found applicant prescribed antidepressant medication months before any record of alleged sexual harassment and medical notes showed workplace only one of multiple causes of applicant’s stress and depression - Authority not satisfied extent of applicant’s incapacity prevented applicant giving proper consideration to raising personal grievance - Found applicant able to get married and apply for new positions during 90 day period - Authority accepted first respondents submissions that if applicant able to undertake those matters could reasonably consider raising grievance - Exceptional circumstances test not met - Application dismissed - Bakery assistant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3);ERA s115(a);ERA s115(b);ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2004] 2 ERNZ 9 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 139_08.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |