| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 289/10 |
| Determination date | 18 June 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | J Minto, M Treen ; D Hudson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Maoate v Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application to permanently restrain disciplinary proceedings – Respondent initiated investigation into allegation applicant disclosed information to media alleging improper conduct by respondent – Respondent discovered applicant had possession of respondent’s documents and requested be returned – Applicant gave documents to union organiser (“S”) – Conflict of evidence whether respondent dismissed applicant for failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions – Respondent claimed investigation not disciplinary as wanted to find out how employees came to possess documents in question – S undertook to not contact media and return documents – Applicant declined to attend meetings as requested by respondent – Respondent requested applicant to respond to additional allegations based on new information - Applicant sought injunction on grounds S’s undertaking resolved matters therefore disciplinary proceedings not necessary - Respondent argued matter serious and applicant needed to answer additional misconduct allegations therefore disciplinary proceedings necessary – Authority found applicant needed to establish “justification on proper grounds” for permanent injunctive relief - Found no legal authority to support proposition employer should be permanently restrained from proceeding with disciplinary process – Found only authority for using injunction to delay or postpone disciplinary process - Found even if matters resolved between parties, respondent had additional allegations to put to applicant in light of new information – Found no inherent unfairness to reopening inquiry in light of new information – Found no arguable case and matter could be effectively disposed of on this conclusion – Found balance of convenience and overall justice not in applicant’s favour as disciplinary process would not materially prejudice applicant – Authority directed respondent to conduct disciplinary proceeding in good faith and adjust time for applicant to respond to additional allegations – Interim injunction declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s162 |
| Cases Cited | Credit Consultants Debts Service v Wilson (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 205;Russell v. Wanganui City College [1998] 3 ERNZ 1076 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 289_10.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |