| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 149 |
| Determination date | 23 September 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Cressey ; G Taylor |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Hayllar and Anor v The Good Time Food Company Ltd |
| Other Parties | Matene |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PRODEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) – Applicants sought removal of employment relationship problem to EC on basis of important questions of law likely to arise – Applicants claimed matters of nature and urgency that in public interest that they be removed immediately to EC – Respondent claimed questions not important and no public interest issues of urgency –Applicants dismissed for breaching respondent’s use of drugs policy – Fairness of drug policy and way it was implemented were key issues for determination – Applicant’s identified 17 alleged questions of law – Authority found no submissions made that matter urgent and given applicants dismissed last year and did not seek reinstatement, no claim for urgency – Authority agreed important questions of law because EC would be able to provide guidance to employers and employees about how drug testing policies should be implemented – Found important issue was whether or not employer must prove, by calling direct evidence, that all aspects of drugs policy, including all employee safeguards, were complied with and whether, if employer failed to provide proper and adequate training and education as specified by policies, policies remained valid and enforceable – Found another less significant question of law was if employee was requested to undergo drugs test, whether employer required to disclose basis for request and provide employee with opportunity to comment before request made – Authority concerned application not made until less than week before investigation meeting scheduled which would have costs implications for respondent – Found respondent entitled to make costs application under exceptional circumstances criteria, and Authority to make award that would have made in absence of legal aid – Found important questions of law and strong likelihood of challenge by either party – Found removal in interests of justice – Application for removal to EC granted – Bakers |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] ERNZ 1;NZEPMU v Air New Zealand Ltd [2004] ERNZ 614;Parker v Silver Ferns Ltd (No 1) [2009] ERNZ 301;Ravnjak v Wellington International Airport Ltd [2011] NZERA Wellington 46 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_149.pdf [pdf 17 KB] |