| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 148/10 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | T McGinn ; J Rooney |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | A v B |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Names of parties prohibited from publication – Applicant’s summary dismissal concerned events and apparent consequences of incident which had been subject of lengthy investigation by respondent occurring 9 months before dismissal – Incident involved social event at applicant’s home involving consumption of alcohol and provision by applicant to guests of natural herbal product – Subsequently co-worker (“C”) who attended social event admitted to hospital and applicant suspended from duty – Respondent argued applicant in breach of strict rules while on standby duty – Following investigation applicant provided with final written warning – Subsequently respondent advised applicant that suspected by Police of supplying Class C drug and considering suspending applicant pending outcome of Police investigation – No charges made against applicant by Police – Contemporaneously, respondent gave applicant toxicology report prepared on C together with transcript of interview with C – Respondent sought further explanations as to how C could have Benzylpiperazine in system when believed all that was taken was herbal pill – Subsequently applicant dismissed – Authority found arguable case existed – Found axiomatic from analysis of respondent’s process that chose to keep referring back to earlier matters which were disposed of – Found if respondent wanted to reserve position regarding toxicology report, then should have told applicant, preserving rights at time – Found fact did not, entitled applicant to say, final written warning end of matter – Found damages award would not meet real immediacy of applicant’s financial situation – Found damages not alternative remedy in circumstances – Found balance of convenience favoured applicant – Authority troubled by sense of double-jeopardy throughout respondent’s investigations which posed real question about whether applicant fairly treated – Found overall justice favoured applicant – Interim reinstatement ordered on garden leave basis |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders made ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s125;ERA s127;ERA s127(4);ERA s127(5) |
| Cases Cited | Ashton v Shoreline Hotel [1994] 1 ERNZ 421;Cliff v Air New Zealand Limited [2005] ERNZ 1;Madar v P&O Services (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 174;Melville v Chatham Island Council [1999] 2 ERNZ 70 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 148_10.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |