| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 100/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; P Zwart |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Smith and Anor v Comptroller of Customs |
| Other Parties | Rankin |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Respondent became aware local newspaper in possession of personal and confidential information related to customs officer (“X”) – Respondent appointed investigators to investigate and recommend whether any release of information and if release amounted to serious misconduct – Second applicant accepted prepared document newspaper received but denied sending document or contacting newspaper – First applicant denied leaking information to newspaper but accepted possessed documents in question – Investigator’s report concluded sufficient grounds that first applicant involved in unauthorised release of information – Report concluded first applicant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct – Report found second applicant knew another customs employee involved in unauthorised release of confidential and private information and breach not brought to respondent’s attention – Report concluded failure irreparably damaged trust and confidence in second applicant – Report initially provided to applicants with parts blanked out – Subsequently entire report released to applicants – Applicants summarily dismissed – Authority found applicants had arguable case respondent failed to provide all information so proper response could be made – Found not situation where applicants would suffer significant financial difficulties if Authority dealt with substantive matter on dates offered – Found respondent in position to meet monetary compensation if grievances established – Authority considered if applicants reinstated would have unlimited access to respondent’s computer system in circumstances where respondent had concluded no trust and confidence in applicants due to release of information – Authority also considered interim reinstatement of applicants would cause hardship to X – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Authority concluded concerned with working relationships in interim and not satisfied matters could be dealt with without considerable hardship – Found overall justice best done by full investigation and careful assessment of evidence related to process and substance of dismissals – Applications for interim reinstatement dismissed – Customs Officer & Assistant Chief Customs Officer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA second schedule cl10(1) |
| Cases Cited | Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Limited v Harvest Bakeries Limited [1985] 2 NZLR 129 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 100_10.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |