| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 192/09 |
| Hearing date | 28 Oct 2009 |
| Determination date | 05 November 2009 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | D Beck ; J Goldstein |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Kilford-Brown v Design and Arts College of New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant’s position redundant – Applicant subsequently applied for restructured role but was unsuccessful – Respondent claimed applicant did not have arguable case as could not be reinstated to old position because did not exist – Respondent claimed only available role disadvantageous to applicant – Applicant argued should have been automatically appointed to restructured position as not significantly dissimilar to original role – Authority found positions not similar – Found applicant provided with restructure process and selection criteria – Applicant sought to rely on letter raising personal grievance – Found letter merely attempt to negotiate settlement regime – Found process adopted by respondent fair and reasonable – Applicant’s claim dismissed for poor performance under guise of redundancy rejected – Found applicant’s case extraordinarily weak – Found balance of convenience did not favour applicant as no appropriate position to be reinstated to – Found reinstatement would negatively impact person appointed to position – Found balance of convenience strongly favoured respondent – Found overall justice strongly favoured respondent – Found lengthy delay in applicant’s complaint about process – Application for interim reinstatement denied – Head of department of interior design and architectural design |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s127;ERA s127(4);ERA s127(5) |
| Cases Cited | Asken v NZ Rail Ltd unreported, Goddard CJ, 12 July 1994, WEC 33/94 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 192_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |