| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 179A/09 |
| Determination date | 23 September 2009 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | M Bailey ; N Faltaus |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dittmer v Progressive Investment Enterprise Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen investigation – Applicant sought to reopen investigation on following grounds – Authority made no decision on applicant’s employment status in earlier determination – Misdirection with regard to onus of proof - Failure to consider material submissions - Contradictory and incorrect conclusions made – Respondent opposed application on following grounds - No proper basis for reopening - Grounds advanced by applicant misconceived as 28 day time limit for challenges to Authority determination expired - No miscarriage of justice caused by earlier determination - Prejudice caused to respondent if application granted – Authority found applicant’s grounds misconceived as grounds related to challenge under s179 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Found s179 ERA not applicable as limitation period expired – Found however, earlier determination inconclusive as to applicant’s employment status – Found applicant entitled to absolute and clear determination from Authority – Authority exercised discretion to grant application on ground earlier determination inconclusive |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s157(3);ERA s179;ERA Second Schedule cl14;ERA Second Schedule cl14(2) |
| Cases Cited | Dittmer v Progressive Investment Enterprise Ltd unreported, Urlich J, 11 Jun 2009, AA 179/09;Shore v Aqua-Cool Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 5 Dec 2005, AC 73/05;Young t/a Young and Co Chartered Accountants v Chin [2008] ERNZ 1 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 179a_09.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |