| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 87/09 |
| Determination date | 25 June 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Vosper ; G Davenport |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Vosper v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether personal grievance raised within 90 days – Applicant emailed resignation to respondent however no personal grievance raised – One month later, parties entered into mediation however no grievance raised – 3 weeks later, applicant filed statement of problem (“SOP”) with Authority but not served on respondent – Authority requested applicant to redraft SOP – 2 months later, applicant filed amended SOP with Authority and served on respondent – SOP enclosed letter dated 1 month earlier – Authority declined to accept SOP sent to respondent on date of letter - Authority found grievance raised out of time – Found no exceptional circumstance and not just to grant leave to raise grievance out of time – Found applicant’s representative experienced solicitor therefore should be aware of limitation periods – Found applicant impeded respondent’s disciplinary process by leaving New Zealand without notice while on suspension – Leave declined - COSTS – Respondent sought contribution to costs of $5,000 for earlier determinations – Authority found applicant caused respondent to incur unnecessary costs and respondent entitled to defend claim – Found contribution to costs of $5,000 and disbursements of $422 in favour of respondent - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent sought first, compliance with costs as condition for applicant to proceed with substantive claim – Second, to rescind non-publication order in earlier determinations – Third, respondent alleged applicant threatened witnesses therefore sought order preventing applicant from contacting witnesses – Authority found no jurisdiction to order payment of costs as condition of proceeding with substantive claim – Found compliance order made for substantive breaches listed in Employment Relations Act 2000 - Found applicant’s poor conduct during proceedings breached Authority’s direction, however, not sufficiently serious to order compliance – Authority rescinded non-publication order – Declined order preventing contact because witnesses not needed for substantive determination |
| Result | Application granted (Rescinding non-publication order) ; Application dismissed (Leave) (Compliance order) (Order preventing contact with witnesses) ; Costs in favour of respondent ($5,000) ; Disbursements in favour of respondent ($422) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114(2);ERA s137;ERA s137(1);ERA s137(1)(a);ERA s137(1)(b);ERA s137(2);ERA s141;ERA s157(1);ERA s157(2);ERA s160(1)(f) |
| Cases Cited | Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [2008] ERNZ 139;Employment Relations Authority v Rawlings [2008] ERNZ 26;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Reid v NZ Fire Service Commission [1996] 1 ERNZ 228;The Applicant v The Respondent, unreported, Cheyne J, 23 Oct 2008, CA 160/08;The Applicant v The Respondent, unreported, Cheyne J, 29 Oct 2008, CA 160A/08;Tropotova and Anor v OCS Ltd and Anor, unreported, Crichton J, 25 May 2009, CA66/09;Whitehead v Scott [1994] 2 ERNZ 461 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 87_09.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |