| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 125A/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 15 December 2010 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | H Waalkens ; N Marshall |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Auckland Wood Waste Removals Ltd v Manavese |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to reopen investigation - Applicant sought rehearing of respondent’s successful personal grievance claim - Applicant had not filed statement in reply or appeared at investigation meeting - Applicant claimed unaware of hearing date or basis of respondent’s claims - Authority found power to reopen investigation discretionary - Found main criterion was whether had been miscarriage of justice - Found needed to be substantial possibility or real or substantial risk of miscarriage of justice occurring - Found applicant’s non appearance at investigation meeting not satisfactorily explained - Found no useful purpose in setting judgment aside - Found applicant had no substantial grounds of defence to respondent’s personal grievance and unlawful deductions from wages claims - Found applicant’s argument was with remedies awarded which should have been dealt with by way of challenge - Found in all circumstances not just to set aside decision and grant application for rehearing - Application dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1) |
| Cases Cited | Bankfield Farm Ltd v Murray unreported, P Cheyne, 4 Jul 2003, CA 55A/03;Manavese v Auckland Wood Waste Removals Ltd unreported, D King, 17 Mar 2010, AA 125/10;Ports of Auckland Ltd v New Zealand Waterfront Workers Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 125a_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |