Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Wellington
Reference No WA 70/08
Hearing date 23 May 2008
Determination date 26 May 2008
Member G J Wood
Representation B Corkill, P Cranney ; P McBride
Location Wellington
Parties The New Zealand Chief and Deputy Chief Fire Officers' Society and Ors v The New Zealand Fire Service Commission and Anor
Other Parties The New Zealand Fire Service Commission, The New Zealand Professional Firefighters' Union, Irvine, Luff, The Chief Executive of the New Zealand Fire Service
Summary INTERIM INJUNCTION - Reasons for determination of Authority on interim injunctions - Following a resignation Fire Service created two new roles - Mr Irvine (“I”) and Mr Luff (“L”) applied for the positions but were unsuccessful - Two other people were appointed to the roles (“the appointees”) - New Zealand Chief and Deputy Chief Fire Officers’ Society (“Society”) raised concerns about appointments - Society considered appointees not competent - Sought cancellation of appointments and re-advertisement - L and I applied for informal and formal review of appointments as allowed for under Fire Service Act 1975 - L’s application for review declined as had not provided appropriate information - I’s application accepted but review committee recommended appointment be upheld - Society applied for interim injunction restraining respondent from taking further steps to employ appointees until further order of Authority - Claimed respondent breached collective employment agreement - New Zealand Professional Firefighters’ Union (“Union”) and L and I applied for interim injunction - Raised same concerns as Society and also alleged bias on part of selection panel, incorrectly prepared job description, and irrational system of assessment - Also claimed Chief Executive predetermined decision, review committee inappropriately constituted, L’s application for review improperly rejected, and I’s review application not fairly considered - Society incorporated issues raised by Union into claim - Proceedings consolidated - Respondents argued appointments properly made and matter one of judicial review outside Authority jurisdiction - Improper appointment if applicants’ could establish case of bias - Just because concerns could be raised by judicial review did not mean Authority had no jurisdiction - Serious question to be tried - Damages not appropriate remedy for either party - Case about preserving and maintaining parties’ rights and obligations - Applicants claimed if injunction not awarded would be subject to unacceptable health and safety risk - If injunction granted respondent would be required to breach employment agreements and suffer reduction in management resources - While Authority loath to intervene in appointment process would do so if appointments not validly made - Applicants less injuriously affected by refusal to grant interim injunction than respondents - Union’s delays should not count against granting of injunction as sought same remedies as Society, and Society did not delay - Significant adjustments appointees made to lives factor against granting injunction - No account taken of allegations against all parties that did not come to Authority with “clean hands” - Likely to be caused by misunderstanding rather than poor conduct - Commission aware of applicants’ concerns when appointments made - Status quo for purposes of applications was prior to employment becoming unconditional - Balance of convenience favoured respondents - Authority will be able to do justice to applicants even if appointees start work - Nothing in overall justice of case to lead to different conclusion – Applications dismissed
Result Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Injunction
Statutes ERA;Fire Service Act 1975 s65;Fire Service Act 1975 s67
Cases Cited Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2008] NZSC 31;Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries [1985] 2 NZLR 140
Number of Pages 11
PDF File Link: wa 70_08.pdf [pdf 49 KB]