| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 78/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Mar 2009 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | R Harrison ; S Langton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Watson v Progressive Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant dismissed following serious misconduct investigation – Applicant resigned from respondent company to take new position at competitor – Respondent discovered applicant had emailed commercially sensitive documents home – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant claimed documents used to prepare work reports – Respondent provided applicant with list of documents emailed and invited applicant to second meeting – Applicant’s representative requested deferral of meeting and notified respondent of application for full disclosure lodged with Authority – Respondent declined request and dismissed applicant for serious misconduct – Applicant claimed had arguable case because disciplinary inquiry flawed which led to unreasonable conclusion of serious misconduct – Authority found serious question to be tried whether respondent made full disclosure under s4(1A) Employment Relations Act 2000 and whether alleged misconduct sufficiently serious to justify dismissal – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour due to irreparable damage dismissal would cause to employment relations with new employer – Found balance in respondent’s favour due to adequacy of damages - Found where no permanent reinstatement sought, no case for interim reinstatement existed - Interim reinstatement designed to remedy existing employment relations at time of dismissal – Substantive determination would remedy damage done to subsequent or future employment relations caused by unjustified dismissal – Found more convenient to wait for substantive determination - Applicant claimed overall justice in their favour – Respondent claimed overall justice favoured status quo due to opportunity already provided to applicant for explanation and substantive hearing needed to determine validity of explanation – Found overall justice favoured status quo – Interim reinstatement declined - Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(C);ERA s101C;ERA s125;ERA s127 |
| Cases Cited | Madar v P & O Services (NZ) Ltd [1991] 2 ERNZ 174 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 78_09.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |