| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 109A/10 |
| Determination date | 24 September 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | O'Sullivan ; M Sinclair, P Kapua |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Pivott and Anor v Southland Adult Learning Programme and Anor |
| Other Parties | O'Sullivan, Literacy Aotearoa Inc. |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for joiner of action - Respondents opposed application for joinder - Authority had previously declined to join second respondent as party to proceedings - First applicant initiated proceedings against second respondent - First applicant sought to join that action with proceedings against first respondent - Claimed had employment relationship with both respondents - Claimed grievances raised against each respondent interconnected - Applicant further claimed second respondent in breach of s134(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) - s134(2) ERA provides that every person who incites, instigates, aids, or abets any breach of an employment agreement is liable to a penalty - Authority concluded joinder of actions not necessary to achieve first applicant’s aims and was unreasonable imposition on second respondent if case for breach of s134(2) ERA could not be made - Found given Authority’s inquisitorial role, better course was for first applicant’s claim against first respondent to proceed first in normal way, during course of which, first applicant could produce evidence to support claim second respondent breached s134(2) ERA and if Authority satisfied had been breach process could be implemented for dealing with allegations - Application to join second respondent to present proceedings declined - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - First applicant sought removal of matter to EC as claimed important question of law likely to arise other than incidentally - Authority found no important question of law arose - Found joinder not especially novel issue - Found in this and previous determination Authority considered arguments and made decision which was available to challenge - Authority found likely application for removal made on erroneous basis Authority already determined matter and declined to give reasons - Ground for removal not made out - Application for removal declined |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s134(2);ERA s178(2)(a) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 109a_10.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |