| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 116/09 |
| Hearing date | 6 Apr 2009 |
| Determination date | 08 April 2009 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | A McInally ; A Caisley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Zeal 320 Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Applicant’s employment problem in two parts - First part was claim for penalties in respect of alleged breaches of good faith arising out of direct communications by respondent to union members in course of bargaining - Second part related to claim that respondent breached s20 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) by denying union organiser access to parts of respondent’s premises, for which applicant sought injunctive relief - Applicant sought urgency in relation to whole problem - During telephone conference Authority indicated application for interim relief would require investigation meeting as submissions required on Authority’s jurisdiction and powers to provide relief sought - Applicant then sought removal of all matters to EC - Respondent opposed removal of substantive issues but supported removal of issue relating to Authority’s power to grant injunctive relief - Authority satisfied important question of law arose in relation to Authority’s jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, because EC in Credit Consultants Debt Services v Wilson (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 205 did not expressly clarify whether Authority had power to grant injunctions in cases not brought within jurisdiction conferred by s161 ERA - Authority accepted more efficient for substance of union access issue to be removed with jurisdictional issue, especially as matter granted urgency - Applicant’s claims for relief in respect of alleged breaches of s20 ERA removed to Court pursuant to ss178(2)(a) and (b) ERA - Authority found issue of respondent’s direct communications with union members separate issue that did not require urgency and so remained in Authority |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s20;ERA s161;ERA s162;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd v Kapadia and Anor [2006] 1 ERNZ 639;Credit Consultants Debt Services NZ Ltd v Wilson (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 205 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 116_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |