| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 19/10 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jan 2010 |
| Determination date | 01 February 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Everist ; G Malone |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Baker v Talley's Group Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued applicant sabotaged respondent’s products and reinstatement not practical – Respondent had numerous complaints made against applicant regarding misconduct and poor performance – Applicant and supervisor (“X”) had poor working relationship – X discovered product packaging had been damaged – Damaged products in applicant’s production line - Damage consistent with cuts done by work equipment provided to applicant – X alleged applicant sabotaged respondent’s products and dismissed applicant for lack of faith – Applicant claimed arguable case as damage caused by machines – Authority found and respondent admitted weak arguable case – Found even if bags damaged by machines, applicant would have been negligent in reintroducing damaged products to packing line – Applicant argued balance of convenience in their favour due to financial loss dismissal caused – Respondent argued balance in their favour as respondent would suffer unreasonable costs by engaging another operator to work alongside applicant – Argued poor employment relations between parties suggested reinstatement impractical – Found balance of convenience and overall justice favoured respondent – Case weak – Applicant delayed lodging statement of problem and affidavits – Restatement impractical – Monetary compensation sufficient remedy - Interim reinstatement declined – Machine Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 19_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |