RESEARCH REPORT: ADJUDICATION OUTCOMES IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Volume 26 Number 3 October 2001 Introduction   The database of decisions   Grievance outcomes   Comparing success rates in the institutions   Compensation outcomes compared

Ian McAndrew is a senior lecturer in industrial and employment relations at the University of Otago. He has been a Member of the Employment Tribunal since 1993 and is the transitional Chief of the Tribunal. The views expressed here are, however, his personal views only. He is grateful to the New Zealand Law Foundation for continued funding support for the research reported here, to Nancy Benington, Josephine McKay and Stephen Bradley of the Industrial Relations Research Centre, University of Otago, and Rebecca Denmead and Jenny Waterworth of the Employment Institutions Information Centre, Employment Relations Service, Department of Labour for research assistance generously given. This research note reports data first presented at the New Zealand Law Foundation sponsored Triennial New Zealand Law Conference and 17th Biennial LAWASIA Conference at Christchurch, New Zealand, October 2001.

Introduction

The New Zealand Employment Tribunal has now functioned in its mediation and adjudication jurisdictions, resolving and arbitrating employment rights disputes, for a full ten years. The Tribunal will be finally disestablished early in 2002. The Employment Relations Authority established under the Employment Relations Act 2000 has replaced the adjudication function of the Tribunal, and the Authority will complete the Tribunal caseload still outstanding at the final closing down of the Tribunal, likely to be something in the neighbourhood of 100 cases. A number of Members of the Employment Tribunal have been appointed to the Authority, so the change in institutions has not been without some continuity of personnel. Temporary transitional Members have, in turn, served on the Tribunal, replacing those appointed to either the Authority or the new Mediation Service also set up under the Employment Relations Act.

As a matter of legislative policy, the Authority's approach to case determination is to be investigative, with the initiative in the hands of the Authority Member, rather than continuing the more traditional adversarial model of advocate-directed case presentation practiced, again as a matter of legislative policy under the Employment Contracts Act 1991, by the Employment Tribunal.

The anecdotal evidence is that proceedings in the Authority have indeed emerged as often less legalistic, less formal, less concerned with technicalities, and less expensive than the Tribunal adjudication process, as it had evolved over the decade. That is not to suggest that the Tribunal often conducted its adjudications in a legalistic, formal, and overly technical fashion. The Tribunal was, in fact, in most respects a flexible and accessible institution. Nonetheless, the Authority is charged with conducting its hearings in a more proactive and less restrained way than the Tribunal was authorised to do, and the anecdotal evidence is that the Authority's approach has been well received by interested parties.

Although the institutions have changed under the Employment Relations Act 2000, the basic law related to personal grievances, with only a couple of notable exceptions, remains essentially unchanged. This has naturally given rise to a curiosity among both practitioners and scholars as to how the case outcomes in the Authority's determinations compare with outcomes in the Tribunal's adjudication decisions over the decade of the latter's existence. This short research note sets out to provide some limited, early answers.

Next page >

	Introduction
	The database of decisions
	Grievance outcomes
	Comparing success rates in the institutions
	Compensation outcomes compared