| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 243/08 |
| Hearing date | 10 Jul 2008 |
| Determination date | 10 July 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | L Yukich ; R McIlraith |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shakes & Anor v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd |
| Other Parties | Helyar |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen investigation – Earlier determination subject of completed de novo challenge in Employment Court – Applicants claimed miscarriage of justice ground for reopening investigation – Applicant also submitted new evidence to be considered following Court decision – Authority found submissions not appropriate place for extending grounds upon which application to reopen made – Authority dealt with matter as claim based on miscarriage of justice in amended application – Authority found miscarriage of justice main criterion in determining whether to grant rehearing – Authority to balance importance of certainty with rights of successful party enjoying benefits of favorable determination – In earlier determination Authority found no unjustified dismissal, no breach of good faith, and no authority to determine Holidays Act breaches as framed by applicant – Non de novo challenge brought to Court on jurisdiction of Authority issue – Applicants asked Court not to substitute own decision for that of Authority – Applicant proposed to use judgment to ask Authority to re-determine personal grievances in their favour – Authority found if application successful would produce further determination allowing another right of challenge – Authority found reopening seemed contrary to Part 10 of Employment Relations Act 2000 and had potential to impinge on principles of res judicata and estoppel – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that in earlier determination no final determination on all matters issued – Authority found when earlier determination issued, job of Authority finished, and challenge available – Authority found rehearing not available on basis Authority wrong at law – Authority gave consideration to whether live issue regarding annual leave – Authority found in accordance with decision of Court provision of alternative holiday proper compensation – Found no evidence provided of hurt and humiliation to support compensation claim – Application to reopen investigation declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Neville Shakes & Malcolm Helyar v Norske Skog Tasman Limited unreported, 12 September 2007, AA 283/07;Neville Shakes & Malcolm Helyar v Norske Skog Tasman Limited unreported, Colgan CJ, 1 May 2008, Ac 11/08;Ports of Auckland Limited v NZ Waterfront Workers Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85;Reid v Fire Service Commission (No2) [1998] 3 ERNZ 1237 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 243_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |