| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 31 |
| Hearing date | 14 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 22 February 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | M-J Thomas ; P Shaw |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Wood v United Fisheries Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant not employee rather was self-employed contractor and therefore could not have dismissed applicant – Applicant signed contract for services after beginning work – Agreement provided for two rates of remuneration relating to oyster catches and other fishing – Additional payment for work performed while vessel docked not mentioned in written agreement – Applicant previously engaged by respondent on similar terms – Applicant claimed arrangement terminated at end of season and applicant anticipated new contract when vessel went trawling – Applicant claimed when approached to assist preparing boat for trawling, applicant asserted would start work as employee – Respondent claimed work always done as part of contract and not by employee – Applicant claimed dismissed by respondent – Respondent agreed altercation occurred but claimed did not dismiss applicant – Respondent claimed applicant left on own accord – Applicant initially engaged under contract for services but claimed arrangement ended at end of season – Applicant claimed re-engaged as employee to perform work preparing boat for trawl fishing – Authority found no mention of cessation of arrangement at end of season and applicant unable to answer questions about cessation – Found applicant unable to reconcile why previous arrangement altered – Found preparation covered by duties set out in contract for services – Applicant claimed respondent deducted tax and forwarded monies to ACC from earnings – Found deductions authorised by applicant in writing, withholding tax deduced not PAYE, deductions previously made but applicant did not consider nature of relationship changed then, and evidence showed applicant annoyed that respondent got benefit of interest accrued on ACC contributions – Found labels on payslips misleading irrelevance – Found applicant specifically asked if was employee of respondent and replied no – Found applicant independent contractor not employee – Deckhand |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s5 |
| Cases Cited | Muollo v Rotaru [1995] 2 ERNZ 414 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_31.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |