| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 98/10 |
| Determination date | 04 March 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | S King ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Flight Attendants & Related Services (NZ) Association v Pacific Blue Employment & Crewing Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicant’s member sought representation from applican for disciplinary investigation meeting – Applicant advised respondent bringing three representatives to disciplinary investigation meeting – Following meeting, respondent contacted applicant to advise that unless exceptional circumstances respondent would not allow multiple representatives to attend future meetings – Applicant sought answer to question whether reference to words “choose any person to represent employee” in s236 ERA enabled employer to limit attendance of multiple representatives at disciplinary meetings – Authority found meetings conducted by employer as part of disciplinary investigation did not fall within meaning of s236 ERA – Found how employer undertook investigations was matter for employer – Found whether employer allowed employee proper and appropriate representation to be judged against duty of good faith, provisions in employment agreement, and consideration of s103A test – Authority concluded every case to be considered on own merits and circumstances, and impossible to make statement regarding what was fair and reasonable that had universal application |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s236(1);ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Gurnell v School Centre Irene Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 22 Jan 2008, AA 18/08;Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 98_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |