| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 293/09 |
| Hearing date | 20 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 20 August 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | P Farry ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Parlane v Ron Dykman Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Respondent sought removal of applicant’s unjustified dismissal and parental leave complaints – Applicant opposed removal – No appearance for respondent at investigation meeting – Respondent’s director (“D”) sent fax to Authority advising considered Authority “corrupted institution,” referring to newspaper reports - Authority did not accept respondent not advised of investigation meeting – Authority satisfied no good cause for failure to attend – Authority considered respondent’s grounds for removal as far as able to be ascertained from D’s affidavit – Authority first considered respondent’s ground for removal based on right to justice as set out in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Authority found respondent acknowledged ground did not relate to grounds for removal set out in s178 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) - Found no question of law arising – Found could not consider ground - Authority considered ground for removal of alleged duplicated proceedings under s178(2)(c) ERA – Authority did not accept private prosecutions for extortion would be called before EC – Found therefore no proceedings in EC which would involve same parties and similar issues - Authority considered ground for removal for alleged “little chance of fair hearing” – D alleged no chance for fair hearing and referred to newspaper articles and disdain for Department of Labour (“DOL”) mediator and Authority – Authority found D’s disdain for Authority not ground for removal under s178 ERA - Authority considered ground for removal of alleged “question of law” – D alleged corruption in mediation and DOL and that DOL investigating important question of law relating to matter – Authority found no evidence to support allegations – Found no question of law because respondent did not advise what alleged question was – Authority noted respondent entitled to challenge determination by way of de novo hearing to elucidate – Authority considered ground for removal of allegations of criminal intent, perjury and extortion – Authority found respondent not denied court hearing as able to challenge determinations to EC – Found not ground for removal – Authority considered ground for removal of alleged breach of natural justice – Respondent claimed breach of natural justice relating to seeking costs and appealing determinations – Authority noted parties able to seek costs and appeal determinations – Found not ground for removal – Authority considered ground for removal that respondent offered applicant “primary remedy” which was twice refused – Authority found not ground for removal – Authority considered residual discretion to remove matter under s178(2)(d) ERA where Authority of opinion that in all circumstances EC should determine matter – Found no such circumstances – Authority declined to exercise discretion to remove matter to EC |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Employment Court Regulations 2000 r14;Employment Court Regulations 2000 r15;Employment Court Regulations 2000 r16;ERA s5;ERA s178;ERA s178(3);ERA s179;ERA Schedule 2 cl8;ERA Schedule 2 cl12;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s27 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 293_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |