| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 93 |
| Hearing date | 9 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 13 March 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M W Kendall (in person) ; B Gauld |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kendall v The Flamekeeper Co Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – Applicant sought unpaid wages – Respondent claimed no additional monies owing – Applicant claimed employment agreement entered – Authority found applicant’s invention owned by respondent – Found document complied with law as if employment agreement – Found parties took number of steps to make document look as if was employment agreement – Found applicant integral to operation of respondent – Found applicant controlled respondent rather than other way round – Found respondent was applicant’s business generated by applicant’s intellectual property, energies and ideas – Respondent claimed payments made to applicant not salary payments – Respondent claimed payments were payments of capital or drawings – Respondent claimed applicant not liable for income tax – Found on balance of probabilities applicant not employee of respondent – Inventor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s6(3);ERA s65 |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] 3 NZLR 721 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_93.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |