| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 170 |
| Determination date | 04 November 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | T Kennedy ; M Lawlor, C English |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cummings v Coca Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (”EC”) – Matter determined on papers – Respondent sought order for removal on grounds that important question of law likely to arise, matter in public interest and similar matter removed from Authority currently before EC – Applicant neither opposed nor consented to removal to EC - Parties disputed whether applicant’s employment agreement (“EA”) included valid 90 day trial period – Respondent claimed trial period was valid and binding on all parties – Authority found whether prior oral agreement or discussion between parties affected EA’s trial period was important question of law – Found question of law likely to arise other than incidentally – Found outcome of similar matter currently before EC could be relevant to matter – Found nothing to suggest matter could not be dealt with promptly in EC – Found would be public interest in matter although not determinative of whether should be removed to EC – Matter removed to EC – Health and Safety Co-ordinator |
| Result | Application granted ; Matter removed to Court ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s67A;ERA s178(2)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 216 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_170.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |