| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 143/10 |
| Determination date | 09 September 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M Smith ; D Erickson |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Chambers v ERS New Zealand Ltd t/a Transpacific Industrial Solutions |
| Summary | PRATICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Authority found proper employing entity was subsidiary of named respondent – Parties agreed for Authority to correct citation of respondent – Application for stay of proceedings – Applicant sought proceedings before Authority stayed pending determination of criminal matters – Respondent opposed stay and requested timetable for amended statement of problem and statement of reply – Authority requested applicant provide details of relevance and impact of criminal matter on employment relationship problem – Applicant denied assaulting foreman – Applicant claimed likely evidence of conviction in District Court would be tendered in evidence before Authority – Claimed if Authority ruled on relying on District Court’s judgment and Court’s factual conclusion this would be adverse to applicant’s interests – Claimed real risk of miscarriage of justice – Authority agreed with respondent’s argument that any issues arising out of right to silence of no direct relevance – Found respondent not relying on applicant’s criminal conviction to base any decision to dismiss applicant – Found application provided useful way to exercise equity and good conscience – Authority agreed with respondents submissions, however identified problem that could arise regarding assessment of remedies – Found tests in District Court and Authority completely different and applicant could not lose right of action regarding personal grievance – Found Authority investigation completely separate matter – Found Authority would not be functus officio and estoppel issue could not arise to bar further action – Found there would not be outcome contrary to public interest – Found conviction not relevant to assessment of justification as occurred after dismissal – Found not just and convenient to interfere with respondent’s right to timely determination – Found balance of convenience and overall justice favoured respondent – Application for stay declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s221;ERA s157(3);ERA s173 |
| Cases Cited | Tauhore v Farmers Trading Company Ltd unreported, 25 February 2008, Shaw J, WC 3/08 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 143_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |