| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 224/10 |
| Hearing date | 18 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Cowey ; G Ryan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Peck v Syft Technologies Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent acknowledged redundancy payment owing to applicant – Authority found 50 percent of sum owing already paid – Applicant applied for compliance order requiring respondent to pay balance of undisputed sum and interest – Respondent argued existing cashflow did not allow for better resolution of sum owing to applicant – Argued was doing best to meet commercial obligations – Applicant claimed respondent balance could be met in full without placing undue strain on respondent’s cashflow – Authority discussed caselaw on compliance orders – Noted Courts traditionally cautious about granting compliance orders in circumstances where alternative remedies exist – Found in particular circumstances of case substantive hearing and mediation on issues including redundancy compensation imminent – Found Authority to be cautious about exercising discretion to grant compliance order and attempt to go further than absolutely necessary to protect parties positions given forthcoming proceedings and mediation – Found compliance not appropriate – Found remedies for breach of compliance order potentially draconian and strong line of authority where alternative statutory remedy available should be preferred – Found proper course to grant alternative order under s131(1A) Employment Relations Act 2000 for repayment of redundancy compensation owing to continue at rate of $3000 per week – Found proper course for Authority to protect relative positions of parties such that status quo maintained while dispute resolution system engaged – Orders accordingly |
| Result | Application dismissed (Compliance order) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s131;ERA s131(1A);ERA s137;ERA s138(4A) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Dental Technicians' IUOW v Dr L Fergus Taylor [1988] NZILR 867;New Zealand Airline Pilot's Association IUOW v Labour Court and Air New Zealand Ltd [1986] NZILR 16, 78;NZ Distribution etc Union v Mildon [1989] 3 NZILR 20;NZ Railways Corporation v NZ Seamen’s IUOW and Evans [1989] 2 NZILR 613; (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 321;Tawhiwhirangi v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2007] ERNZ 652;Wellington District Hotel etc IUOW v Byfield Stud Co Ltd [1988] NZILR 487 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 224_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |