| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 216 |
| Determination date | 23 May 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | G Bennett ; A Proudfoot |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Applicant sought removal on grounds important question of law likely to arise – Employment agreement (“EA”) contained 90 day trial period – Applicant claimed EA signed on first day of employment however job offered and accepted during previous month – Applicant claimed offer and acceptance based on express agreement would be no 90 day trial period and in reliance on this applicant resigned from previous job – Applicant claimed when presented with EA had no choice but to sign it – Respondent claimed offer of employment not made on basis no 90 day trial period – Respondent opposed removal to EC – Respondent claimed Authority should determine preliminary issue of whether undertaking occurred as alleged by applicant as if determined in respondent’s favour, whole matter would disappear – Authority found no dispute applicant offered and accepted work month before EA signed – Found if became employee at point offered and accepted work, would give rise to whether could be held to trial provision contained in EA later entered – Found matter was important question of law – Found matter would not disappear if found undertaking did not occur as would still need to be determined whether trial provision could be introduced in later EA – Found now that trial provisions may be applied by enterprises of all sizes, was desirable that EC determine matter – Matter removed to EC – Farm Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s67A;ERA s67B |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_216.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |