| Summary |
JURISDICTION – Statements of problem claimed applicants unjustifiably dismissed, unjustifiably disadvantaged, subjected to unlawful trespass, unlawful discrimination, breaches of good faith, breaches of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBOR”), breaches of unspecified international conventions and breach of Wages Protection Act 1983 – Respondent denied personal grievance and wages allegations and argued remaining claims outside jurisdiction of Authority or not capable of being brought against respondent, as respondent not Crown agency – This determination considered preliminary issues relating to trespass, Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) (“BOR 1688”), NZBOR and unspecified international conventions – Authority found applicants essentially submitted that s161(1)(r) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) permitted allegations to be subsumed within Authority’s jurisdiction – Authority noted meaning of “employment relationship problem” only involved parties to relationship, excluding third parties – Found causes of action related to alleged actions by third party – Found nothing before Authority suggested any of applicants’ unusual causes of action fell within meaning of employment relationship - Found no basis Authority could derive jurisdiction or contemplate granting of remedies against stranger to employment relationship, who was not party to proceedings – To avoid doubt, Authority considered respondent’s submissions relating to specific enactments in applicant’s claims – Authority found trespass allegation tortious so excluded from consideration by Authority – Authority found little in applicant’s submissions to justify reference to BOR 1688, respondent not Crown agency, and claim for breach of statutory duty based on 1688 document tortious so outside Authority’s jurisdiction – Found NZBOR regularly used in employment jurisdiction to aid interpretation, but that differed from applicant mounting claim based on breach of NZBOR - Found respondent not public body nor body performing public acts, excluding application of NZBOR – Found allegations pleaded under NZBOR tortious and outside Authority’s jurisdiction – Human rights allegations dismissed due to absence of specific pleadings – Found no basis on which Authority had jurisdiction to consider alleged breaches of unspecified international conventions nor award remedies for breaches – Applicants’ personal grievance and wages claims remained to be considered – COSTS – Respondent sought costs in respect of jurisdictional issue and for delays caused by applicant’s behaviour – Respondent argued applicant’s arguments technically complex but without relevance and against Authority’s early indications that claims without merit or substance – Respondent argued lengthy delay led respondent to believe matter not being proceeded with – Respondent’s actual costs over $1,500 – Authority reserved costs on substantive jurisdictional point – Authority ordered $500 contribution to respondent’s reasonably incurred costs for applicants’ unreasonable delays – Under s137 ERA, Authority ordered that unless applicants paid costs ordered within timeframe stipulated, Authority would take no further steps to investigate substantive employment relationship problems |