| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 150/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A Sharma ; G Malone |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Burtton v Talley's Group Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought interim reinstatement following dismissal for alleged drug use – Respondent resisted interim reinstatement – Respondent conducted drug search on fishing vessel applicant worked on – Drug dog took particular interest in applicant’s luggage and investigation conducted – Applicant denied drug use – Respondent alleged applicant lied about relationship with other employee also being investigated for drug use – Applicant suspended while matters investigated – Respondent alleged witnesses saw applicant using P while at sea and applicant supplied narcotic to young female crew members – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant had arguable case – Found threshold not high and case not strong given applicant lied about relationship with other employee – Found inevitable respondent would prefer evidence of witnesses and drug dog – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Found damages appropriate rather than impose interim reinstatement on unwilling employer – Found interim reinstatement not proper use of Authority’s discretion – Found dishonesty fundamental breach of employment relationship and difficult to see how employment relationship could continue even on interim basis – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Found dishonesty of applicant made impossible for Authority to order interim reinstatement – Deckhand |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s127 |
| Cases Cited | Cliff v Air New Zealand unreported, J Scott, 1 June 2005, AA 1A/05 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 150_10.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |