| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 107A/10 |
| Determination date | 16 December 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; A Dunseath |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | New Zealand Dairy Workers Union v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen investigation – Applicant claimed substantive determination did not effectively dispose of employment relationship problem – Applicant claimed questions designed to have Authority resolve issue and avoid situation where members put to extensive trouble tracing whether agreement on anticipating leave – Claimed Authority did not answer questions and instead responded to different issue not raised – Respondent resisted application to reopen – Respondent argued substantive determination proceeded on footing no dispute between parties – Found while substantive determination did not find dispute in legal sense, Authority found no breach of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) or Holidays Act 2003 – Authority rejected applicant’s submission Authority failed to deal appropriately with issues in substantive determination – Found was Authority’s view unable to answer hypothetical questions about apparent concerns of Union members when no legal dispute, and even if had not proved breach of CEA or Holidays Act 2003 – Found Authority entitled to make decision based on evidence and submissions received – Found no evidence of miscarriage of justice – Found even if investigation reopened difficult to see Authority reaching different conclusion – Found no suggestion applicant would advance fresh evidence – Application to reopen declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 107a_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |