| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 334/10 |
| Hearing date | 19 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2010 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | L Black ; K Burson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rathnayaka v Lab Tests Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed from Technician position – Respondent argued reinstatement not practicable as no trust and confidence in applicant – Four incidents occurred involving applicant’s failure to follow proper procedures, resulting in written warnings – Final incident resulted in erroneous test results affecting respondent’s business reputation and patients’ health – Applicant removed from Technician position and offered Assistant position – Respondent confirmed no trust and confidence in applicant’s ability to work safely – Applicant signed new employment agreement and commenced Assistant position – Applicant subsequently made redundant – Applicant made clear to respondent wanted to return to Technician position – Applicant’s redundancy also affected work permit and visa – Applicant claimed arguable whether applicant redeployed or dismissed and then re-employed when removed from Technician position – Claimed arguable whether applicant or machine responsible for erroneous test results – Authority found arguable case – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour as respondent had done wrong to applicant – Claimed if reinstated, could obtain new work permit – Respondent argued balance in their favour as reinstatement would detrimentally affect business and patient safety – Argued no trust and confidence in applicant’s ability to perform duties competently – Argued applicant’s attitude caused employment relationship problem and not easily fixed – Argued no resources to supervise applicant if reinstated – Found argument unable to supervise applicant unpersuasive – Found reinstatement driven by applicant’s desire to obtain work permit, albeit not admitted by applicant – Found no guarantee applicant could legally work if reinstated as permit expired – Found substantive hearing only few weeks away – Found balance and overall justice favoured respondent – Found detriment may be suffered by respondent should reinstatement be granted – Found while applicant disadvantaged by removal from Technician position, compensation would sufficiently address harm – Reinstatement declined – Medical Laboratory Technician |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s174(b)(ii) |
| Cases Cited | Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 334_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |