| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 415/08 |
| Hearing date | 3 Dec 2008 |
| Determination date | 09 December 2008 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | W Peters, L Currie ; T Drake, L Holley |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Busch v Zion Wildlife Gardens Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Zion Wildlife Services Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCDURE - Identity of employer – Respondents argued second respondent should be removed from proceedings – Authority declined to remove second respondent until full hearing of relevant evidence as to applicant’s correct employer - Parties previously applied to restrict publication of proceedings – In Minute, Authority declined TVNZ request to film substantive proceedings – Parties made submissions regarding discretion to limit publication in relation to interlocutory applications – Authority excluded press from interim reinstatement investigation meeting, treating it as being in nature of chambers meeting – INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant suspended while respondent conducted investigation into allegations of serious misconduct – Applicant declined to attend disciplinary meeting – Respondent dismissed applicant for serious misconduct, effective immediately – Authority satisfied that substantive and procedural issues raised by applicant gave rise to arguable case – Authority also considered applicant met threshold of tenable arguable case for permanent reinstatement as remedy – In balance of inconvenience, Authority found applicant unable to take up former duties or care for animals unless regained licence from MAF – Found conflict would likely ensue if applicant reinstated, causing major disruption to respondents – Applicant not suffering financial hardship as in receipt of earnings related compensation for injury - Reinstatement of no practical effect while applicant continued to be unfit for work – Authority considered respondents’ obligations to staff who stated could not work with applicant – Respondents offered to pay for alternative accommodation if required applicant to leave on-site accommodation – Balance of convenience favoured respondents - Applicant argued overall justice of case favoured applicant as had little chance of finding alternative employment and was concerned about welfare of animals – Authority found welfare of animals matter for MAF, not Authority – Not certain when applicant would be fit to work regardless - Garden leave would not address applicant’s desire to work with animals – Authority did not consider injustice would done by requiring applicant to wait for short time remaining until full investigation completed – Application for interim reinstatement declined – Wildlife park operator |
| Result | Application dismissed (interim reinstatement) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 415_08.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |