| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 289/08 |
| Determination date | 13 August 2008 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | Dr P Heaslip (in person) ; P Dawson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Heaslip and Anor v Raglan Area School Board of Trustees |
| Other Parties | Vallyon |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen Authority investigation – In determination AA 283/05, applicant acted as counsel for applicant employee (“V”) – Authority found applicant could not personally take over V’s employment relationship problem, even with V’s consent – Found no evidence V aware of claim, let alone given consent – Found continuing investigation would be abuse of process – Found leaving aside issue of standing, no grounds disclosed in reopening application upon which it might reasonably succeed – Found application appeared as challenge, so must be filed in Employment Court – Found three year delay since determination excessive – Authority noted applicant also sought to continue case in District Court – COSTS – Respondent sought costs – Lengthy telephone conference but no investigation meeting – Authority rejected applicant’s submission Authority indemnify applicant for costs, alleging Support Staff at fault –– Respondent’s actual costs $1,681.50 – Authority awarded $900 costs to respondent |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($900) |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA Schedule 2 cl 4;ERA Schedule 2 cl15 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 289_08.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |